God is the Potter, and Men Are the Clay

"The Lord has made all for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom" (Proverbs 16:4). 

This verse amazes me, because it turns a complex and difficult topic into one simple sentence. It tells us that God, Jehovah, is the Creator, and that He has made all things, including the wicked, not for our own purposes, but for His. Paul uses the image of the potter to convey the same concept: "You will say to me, then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?' 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 another for dishonor?" (Romans 9:19-21; see also Jeremiah 18:1-17). Paul's "vessel for dishonor" is the same as Proverbs' "wicked." 

Such Scriptures leave no ground for imagining human autonomy. The God of the Bible is no pagan deity who molds people like pinballs to bounce their own way through life at their own whim or mystical karma/fate. In fact, it is exactly this rejection of autonomy which is the real justification for unbelief. the unbeliever desperately desires to imagine that he is the captain of his own fate, and his imagination is cast down if he ever acknowledges that God is God and the man is not.

We see the same thing in the addict of free-will theology. He, too, retains from unbelief the assumption of his own autonomy. "God didn't create us to be robots," he protests. No, God made us to be His servants; it is sin that makes us robots. Yet, the free-will theologian has nothing to say about his enslavement sin. That, he never says out loud, is preferable to being enslaved to the God who made him. 

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).

The Character of God as Guarantee of the Saint's Perseverance

"It is impossible [that] we should lose the thing we were wrought for, because it is God that wrought it for us. It is not the designment of an idol; that is, of some ignorant, rash, fallible, or mutable agent, such a one as may possibly be surprised by unlooked-for accidents, circumvented by a sublimer understanding, overborne by a power above him, or recede from his purpose through levity and fickleness of his nature, etc. But it is God who is 'wise in heart and mighty in strength,' Job 9:4. It is He from whom all things that are have their being and are perfectly under His rule and obeisance. He had eternity before Him, to lay His design surely; and, accordingly, 'He declared the end from the beginning.' It is, therefore, as impossible for Him either to do or to neglect to do, or to suffer to be done, anything whereby His purpose might suffer disappointment, as it is impossible that God should lie. He would never have set up those ends as the sum and substance of His design, if He had not determined to see them made good." -Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty 

Part of the Creator/creature distinction is that the Creator is omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal, while the creature has all but three of those attributes. A creaturely awareness is conscious of our inability to plan for all contingencies, at all times, as may disrupt our best-laid plans. For example, the farmer cannot know of the coming hurricane that wipes out his crop. In contrast, the triune God of the Bible has infinite awareness across all time, all space, and under all contingencies, such that His plans are infallibly achieved. As in the verse that Coles quotes, "I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish My purpose'" (Isaiah 46:10). It would be comical hubris for any human to make such an assertion. 

However, it is also unforgiveable hubris to assert such infallibility for any man's ability to keep himself in a state of grace. Yet that is what the Arminian does, when he claims that no man can keep himself saved, and, therefore, he should never be assured of his hold on eternal life. If the fundamental assumption of the Arminian, that it is the will of the man that should thus preserve him, then it would be true that no man could ever know an assurance of salvation in this life. 

But this is exactly what perseverance is not. It does not, has never, and never shall, depend on the will and power of the creature to maintain his state of grace. It is the work of God alone, He whose irrepeatable attributes of deity guarantee that any man, truly saved, can never fully and finally lose his salvation. Thus, his assurance is sound, not because of any ability of his own, but because of the infallible character of the God who saved him to begin with. 

The Assurance of Perseverance

Arminians like to argue against the biblical doctrine of perseverance by citing the biblical warnings against apostasy. Those warnings truly exist; no Calvinist would say otherwise. The problem is that the Arminian argues further that the existence of the warning logically requires that the apostasy of true believers must be possible. To that the Calvinist objects as an unwarranted leap of logic. 

"That a righteous man may fall is evident. And as evident it is that he cannot fall finally. For, though he fall seven times in a day, as often does he rise again, Proverbs 24:16, and this because 'the Lord upholdeth him with His hand,' Psalm 37:24, and again, 'the Lord upholdeth all that fall,' Psalm 145:14. That is, either He stays them when they are falling, or so orders and limits the matter that they fall not into mischief, as others do, and, to be sure, He will set them on their feet again. The absolute promise cannot be nullified or made uncertain by cautionary words elsewhere delivered" -- Puritan Elisha Coles, A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty. Coles continues, "The Lord does ordinarily bring about His purposes by means, of which cautions are a part. And by which, as a means, He keeps off the evil cautioned against."

Coles' point, which is an important one, is that God's warnings of the consequences of apostasy are one of the means by which He prevents the elect from experiencing those consequences. It is like the parent of a small child, who warns against touching the hot stove. The parent expects his warning to prevent that against which he has warned. Yet the Arminian wants us to believe that the parent's warning implies that the child will, then, proceed to touch the stove and get burned. Not only does the parent have no such expectation,  but God even less so, because He has effectual means for maintaining the faith of the true believer. 

Weariness and the Call of the Gospel

One of the most comforting statements in the Bible comes from the mouth of Jesus Himself: "Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30). His reference to "rest for your souls" is an indication that He was not speaking of physical weariness, or, at least, not primarily. Rather, He was describing the burden of sin, of which He alone is the cure. 

Turning from the weight of sin to liberation in Jesus is something that only the elect person can do. The reprobate, in contrast, while they experience the futility of sin, will turn to any other source for relief, whether it is substance abuse, moral reform, or a false religion. But, by his very nature, the reprobate is unable to depend on the only solution that works, i. e., redemption and sanctification by Jesus, received by grace alone through faith alone. 

An error is often committed here, even among folks who profess the Reformed Faith. And that error is to teach that Jesus is appealing to the undistinguished mass of humanity, whether elect or reprobate, because, they suppose, God wants "all to be saved" (out of context from I Timothy 2:4). They believe that God has two wills at war with each other, the will to save some, elected from prehistory, but not others, and another will that wants all to be saved. This is called by the misleading phrase "the well-meant gospel offer." That is, offered by God. No one disagrees that we men cannot know who is or is not elect, so we sincerely desire everyone with whom we share the Gospel to respond in saving faith. 

God, however, certainly does know. Yet this doctrine, admittedly the majority doctrine, holds that He, nevertheless, desires everyone without exception to believe unto salvation. This is in spite of what Jesus also tells us in another place: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). So we have this doctrine of the well-meant offer claiming that God works at cross purposes, both drawing and refraining to draw the same men. How can such a schizophrenic being be God? 

Rather, God gives a general outward announcement of the gospel, to which He has decreed that a portion, the elect, will respond in saving faith.  To the reprobate, the hearing of the Gospel is not an invitation to believe, but is, instead, a declaration of judgment, because God has decided to harden them against the word that they hear. That increases their judgment. It is not an effort at cross purposes to the secret will of God. 

The doctrine of the well-meant gospel offer seems to be an effort by Calvinists to take the edge off the doctrine of election, to make it more palatable to the Arminians around us. Yet, how can the insult to the omnipotence of God be worth any softening of our opponents toward us? Not that I believe that Arminians are made any more hospitable thereby. The doctrine puts God in violation of the logical principle of non-contradiction; it violates the Scriptures that tell us that God necessarily achieves His will (e. g., Daniel 4:35 and Psalm 135:6). In support of it is no Scripture or logically-consistent principle. 

Therefore, I am compelled to reject it. 

The Perfect and Proper Sovereignty of God Over His Creatures

"The heavens and the earth and all the hosts of them, as yet having no being, it was [according to] His pleasure whether He would make them or not. And, if He would, what being He would give them, to what end, and how that end should be accomplished. And that all these were ascertained by the decree is evident, for 'known unto God were all His works (which He would do in [the process of] time from the beginning of the world' (Acts 15:18)." --Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

In the quote above, we see the historic protestant view of the sovereignty of God. He created all things according to His plan of what to create, what the purpose and place of each would be, and how that purpose would be achieved. This is especially contrasted with the modern theology of Open Theism, which asserts that God cannot determine or even predict the contingent actions of animate creatures. But it also conflicts with the Arminian view, which claims that God has the power of sovereignty, but has withheld His determination in favor of free agency. 

Coles gave an excellent citation for his view, and against the various forms of autonomy: "Known to God from eternity are all His works" (Acts 15:18 NKJV). God had planned all that He would do in and with His creation before He created any of it. "Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God and there is none like Me, declaring 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 46:8-10). 

Both Coles and the Bible describe a God who is very different from the deity of the Arminians.

Jesus the Shepherd and Effectual Calling

"That saying of Christ is much to our purpose: 'And other sheep I have, them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice' (John 10:16). This must imports a duty not to be dispensed with. He had 'received a commandment for it from the Father' (verse 18), and this shall [imports] that effectual working 'whereby He subdues all things to Himself,' and whereby they are made to believe (Eph. 1:19). The sheep of themselves lie as cross to this work as other men. 'What have I to do with Thee?' cries the possessed Gadarene (Mark 5:7), but, being His sheep, He must make them willing (Psalm 110:3)." - Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" (emphasis in the original). 

A common Arminian objection to the doctrines of grace is their claim that "God has given us free will." And by that phrase, they mean a level of sovereignty, such that each man is able to chose God for himself or to reject God for himself, and God takes a hands-off attitude toward that decision. 

First, there is no such sovereignty. On the contrary, it was a false offer of sovereignty that Satan made to Adam and Eve in the first temptation. Satan said that a declaration of independence would enable them to decide for themselves what is good or what is evil. Yet, somehow, Arminians are unconcerned that their claim is the same as that made by Satan, by which he deprived the first couple of their blissful existence in the garden of Eden. And second, nowhere does the Bible say that men have any such authority. It is God's authority alone to determine right and wrong. 

Notice the scriptural citations in the quote above from Puritan Coles. Jesus is the shepherd, and His people are sheep. In the anti-type of that metaphor, it is the shepherd who selects his sheep, not the sheep who choose a shepherd. So it is with Jesus's sheep. His flock consists of those given to Him by the Father in their prehistoric intra-Trinitarian covenant (John 6:37-37). And, as Coles notes, Jesus never left the result to the sheep. Rather, He declared His divine intent, one which must be achieved, and the means shall be arranged, and the sheep will be brought into their eternal fold. Not once does the divine shepherd express a mere hope that the sheep will agree or that His calling would achieve its end. Rather, He expresses an unfailing assurance that such will definitely be the case: "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day" (John 6:39, see also John 17:24).

Grace and the Means of Election

"If grace be perfectly free in choosing, it must be answerably free in giving and applying the means to bring about the end it hath chosen us to. For if the effect of the means should depend upon something to be done by men, which grace is not the doer of, then works would put in for a share in the glory of men's salvation. and so, the grace of God would be dethroned, and be as if it were not." --Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty"

One will often hear the worst of the Arminians say that God has done "everything that He could" to save everybody. Then, they claim, it is up to the individual to accept or refuse what God has done. I have even seen a tract designed like a ballot: "Will you go to Heaven? God votes 'yes.' Satan votes 'no.' It's a tie! The deciding vote is yours." An example can be seen here. The blasphemy is appalling! As if the will of Satan or of a man is equal to God's will, or even has a veto over it! 

Instead, as Puritan Coles says above, election includes all of the means necessary for attaining its purpose. That is, God votes "yes" (or "no," as the case may be), and no other vote is entered. In prehistory, the Father chose a race to give to the Son to be redeemed and to the Holy Spirit to be regenerated unto new life. That choice isn't just for the first domino, with a hope that the rest of the dominoes will fall in the desired pattern. No, each domino is placed by the triune God, so that each step is infallibly achieved (John 6:27-39). The Puritans called this the Golden Chain of Redemption, from Paul's words in Romans 8:29-30: "Those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified." Notice where the chain starts, that it is for the sake of Jesus, not of us. That is where Arminianism fails to address the Scriptures on this issue. The Arminian wants to reserve some level of autonomy for man, such that salvation is for man's sake. It isn't, because man isn't. God's plan is centered on Jesus, and the elect are a means to that end. God's Gospel is Christ-centered, while that of the Arminian is man-centered, and, therefore, false.

Faith a Gift, Not a Work

"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" (Philippians 1:29). 

Arminians assume that Jesus did half of the work of salvation for every single person who has existed or ever will exist. Then some are saved when they match what He did with the work of faith on our part. And I do not choose that phrasing haphazardously; that is how I have had it stated to me. Thus, men are saved, not through faith, but by faith, as the completion of all that God could do on our behalf. 

In contrast, the Calvinist teaches, on the basis of what Scripture says, that faith is the means, not the basis, by which the atonement is effectually applied to everyone for whom it was purchased (see John 6:37-39). That purchase included the gift of faith, so that it is not a work, not a contribution, by the believer to complete the work of Christ on the cross (I Corinthians 2:2). In fact, the Calvinist considers the Arminian view on this subject to be a scandalous aspersion on the blood of Jesus, as if it is unable to save to the uttermost (Hebrews 7:25). 

Notice the verse at the top, Philippians 1:29. Paul tells the Philippian Christians that it has been granted to them to believe, not that salvation has been offered, contingent on their completion of it by working faith in themselves. We see the same thing in Ephesians 2:8, where the same Apostle told believers that God gave them their saving faith. 

The essence of this principle is that the atonement was sufficient for every person for whom it was intended, because it purchased everything necessary and sufficient for the salvation of that person. He need not, indeed cannot, add anything to what Jesus did on the cross and for him in Heaven: "He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through Him, since He ever lives to make intercession for them" (Hebrews 7:25).

The Sovereignty of God Over the Days of Our Lives

"Your eyes saw my unformed substance; 

In Your book were written, every one of them, 

The days that were formed for me,

When as yet there was none of them." 

- Psalm 139:16 

In this verse, David praises God for that which so many modern evangelicals reject, His sovereign planning of the intimate details of our lives. In verse 6, he even says, "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me." But the American evangelical responds by squawking, "Free will! Free will! Free will!" with the same cadence and lack of thought as the seagull at the beach. If there were thought in their kneejerk response, they might recognize that their objection is the same that Satan offered Adam and Eve in their temptation (Genesis 3:5), i. e., the illusion of autonomy.

The problem for these devotees of their Saint Pelagius is that their holy invocation of "free will" is not biblical. The verse above is just one example to the contrary. Another that I like is, "I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring 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 46:9-10). And this verse provides the key, which is missed by too many professing Christians. The Bible includes God's absolute sovereignty in His nature as the unique living God. A god without sovereignty is not the God of the Bible, and, therefore, is a mere idol of men's fantasy. 

The Father Certifies the Son's Atoning Work

"Between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And He went and took the scroll from the right hand of Him who was seated on the throne. And when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying, 'Worthy are You to take the scroll and to open its seals, for You were slain, and by Your blood You ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and You have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth'" (Revelation 5:6-10). 

The passage above is one of the most beautiful in the New Testament. It parallels a similar scene in Daniel 7:9-14. I think that both passages describe the same event, Daniel prophetically in advance and John by vision after the event: the entry of Jesus into the heavenly throne room after His ascension. He receives His commission from the hand of the Father, a diploma, if you will. The Father acknowledges the Son's successful completion of the work of redemption, and rewards Him with the glory of a church, consisting of men from every culture, just as the Father had promised Him in Psalm 2:6-8: "As for Me, I have set My King on Zion, My holy hill. I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession.'" Compare this promise to the declaration of Jesus in the Great Commission: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:18-20).

While there are many things that we can take out of this series of verses, my intent now is to turn from Who achieved it, to for whom He achieved it. 

Look again at Revelation 5, especially verse 9: "by Your blood You ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." The common view of the redemptive work of Jesus is that He performed it for every person in the world throughout history. That is the view of Arminianism. That is, the Arminian reads John's words as, "by Your blood You ransomed all people for God." However, that isn't what the verse says. It says, "people from every tribe, etc." The difference is the assumption of a universal atonement in the Arminian version, but a particularization to certain men in John's actual words. 

This passage teaches the doctrine of particular atonement, also sometimes called definite or limited atonement, usually associated with the Calvinist system of doctrine. It does not permit the universal atonement advocated by the Arminian system.

Persevering in the Perfecting Power of Jesus

A common caricature of the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is that it, supposedly, allows a person to spout some words, and then to live wickedly, assured that he is destined for Heaven. And I grant that the oft-used semi-Arminian version, "once saved-always saved," can be taken exactly that way. That is because the anti-Calvinists don't understand the difference. 

As I wrote here, once saved-always saved (hereafter, "OSAS") is the Calvinist doctrine transplanted into an otherwise Pelagian system of theology. It simply doesn't work. In contrast, perseverance holds that God will enable the believer to continue in faith and sanctification. That doesn't mean that the believer can never stumble; rather, it means that he will never ultimately stumble forever.

Consider this verse: "For by a single offering He [i. e., Jesus] has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14). Notice the sequence here. By His one offering of Himself on the cross, Jesus has perfected, i. e.,  legal standing, or justification, those are being sanctified, i. e., progressive sanctification. So the one-time cross work of Jesus saved the elect, so that we have immediate standing as perfect, or holy, and will increasingly experience that holiness in our lives. 

That which has already been perfected cannot fail to achieve its purpose! 

Jesus on the Cross Knew His Sheep

"God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: 'The Lord knows those who are His,' and, 'Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity'" (II Timothy 2:19).

The Apostle Paul makes the statement above to his pastoral apprentice Timothy. He seems to be quoting something, but we don't know the origin of the quote. However, we can certainly find equivalent statements of Paul's statement, "The Lord knows those who are His." In fact, Jesus Himself made the same point: "I am the good shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me" (John 10:14). Jesus also declared that He knew who is not His sheep: "You [Jewish leaders] do not believe because you are not among My sheep" (John 10:26). 

Jesus also understood the significance of being one of His sheep:"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will 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 the Father’s hand" (John 10:27-29). The sheep of Jesus are those that He would later redeem on the cross, a redemption which would be effectual and irreversible (compare John 6:37-39). 

The image I like is another one used in Scripture, Jesus as the bridegroom, and the church, i. e., all of His sheep together, as the bride. In that patriarchal society, fathers chose the spouses for their children. Arranged marriages were the norm. As His Father, God the Father had chosen a bride for His Son, and Jesus, as the dutiful Son, could neither reject that bride for another nor fail to bring His marriage to fulfillment. Yet, the Arminian wants us to believe that Jesus did not know His bride. In fact, the Arminian would have us believe that there was no guarantee that there would be a bride. Rather, the Groom was to be blindfolded, to share His favors with any stranger. He was to give His divine love to even the prostitute (Proverbs 5:1-20). 

But no, Paul tells us. the Lord knows those who are His. he knows His bride, and that she is no seductress.

Jesus, His bride, and Particular Atonement

 In the story of the sheep and goats, Jesus told of the division of the redeemed, whom He calls the sheep, from the wicked, whom He calls the goats. In the judgment, the king, i. e., Jesus, says to the redeemed, "Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 25:34, emphasis added). This verse has great significance in the issue of the intention of the atonement. 

So, what is prepared? The kingdom, i. e., of God. For whom is it prepared? For the sheep, i. e., the redeemed. And when was it prepared? Before the foundation of the world. Each of these assertions by Jesus refutes the claims of the Arminian. The Arminian claims that predestination applies to the consequences of belief. That is, he says that God has predestined sanctification and glorification for whoever believes. No, Jesus says, He has predestined the very kingdom itself, which includes those things, as well as the faith by which they are applied. Every benefit purchased by Jesus on the cross has been prepared for those for whom He died. For whom? Jesus did not go to the cross not knowing for whom He would die. It was to be His sheep, not the goats (see also John 10:3-4, 26-27, and 17:2-3, 6). And when was that determination made? Before the foundation of the world. God did not wait upon the decisions of men to determine what Jesus would do on Calvary and for whom, and with what results.

This is no isolated teaching of Jesus. Paul tells us the same truths in Ephesians 1:3-13. What was predestined? "Every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (verse 3). Predestined when? "Before the foundation of the world" (verse 4). Paul spoke in exactly the same words as Jesus! For whom? "For us" (verses 3, 4, 5), and "we" (verse 4). Who is "we"? The saints who are in Ephesus" (verse 1). Paul was not writing to people in general; rather, he was writing specifically and explicitly to Christians. The Arminian must ignore the grammar of the passage in order to make these verses apply to any hypothetical person without exception.

We can see here only that the atonement of Jesus was particular, that is, intended for particular people, the Church (Ephesians 5:25). The Arminian would have us believe that Jesus must wait until the Judgment to see who was saved by His blood, if anyone. No, Jesus knew His bride when He ascended to the cross, because the Father had told Him her name before the foundation of the world. Jesus then spent the next millennia, from the creation to the crucifixion, loving her in His heart, and longing for the day to arrive when He would purchase her redemption. No man could do that for a stranger, some hypothetical women whom he is yet to meet. But that is the marriage plan of the Arminian. No, Jesus loved her before she even existed. And as a Jewish father of the First Century would, God the Father had arranged His Son's marriage and prepared His bride for her wedding day.

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.

The Spiritual Resurrection of the Believer from Death to Life

One of the continuing influences of Pelagianism is the supposition that men are in a spiritually-neutral state. I suspect that this is a holdover from American culture, because we want to believe that everyone is equally able to pull himself up by his own bootstraps. However, we have this statement from Paul to the believers in Ephesus: "You were dead in the trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1). Even though that sentence is both simple and direct, people will deny it outright.

The significance of Paul's statement is that it does not allow any contribution by men to their own salvation. Just as a dead man cannot rescue himself from drowning, the spiritually-dead person cannot save himself from damnation. It is on that basis that the Apostle continues: "You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:1-9). It is exactly because man is dead spiritually that salvation must be by grace through faith alone, because only a living person can perform works. Salvation occurs because God has made us alive again by His own power, not by any action on our part.

Still, even as plain as Paul's statement is, many people still deny it. The illusion of autonomy offered by Satan in the Garden (Genesis 3:5) still entices us, so that we must retain some contribution of our own.

However, if some cannot accept the truth on the basis of Paul's words, will those of Jesus carry more weight? For it is He who said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24, emphasis mine). He describes salvation in Him as passing from death to life. Not from sickness to health, as the Arminian professes. The unbeliever is dead, while the believer is alive."And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O My people. And I will put My Spirit within you, and you shall live" (Ezekiel 37:13-14).

Perseverance: Will There Be Free Will in Heaven?

Those who oppose the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (also misleadingly called "eternal security" or "once saved always saved"), especially Catholics and Mormons, claim that we have free will, so we can will to leave our saved state. They never have  have Scripture for this supposed free will. Rather, they insist that it is necessary, in order for people truly to love God or sincerely to obey Him. When I ask, According to what standard?, they usually accuse me of turning men into automatons.

The point is that their objection is emotional, not rational or biblical. It is also cultural, reflecting an American attitude of "fairness." Other cultures don't have that problem. Watch them turn cross-eyed if you make any of these objections to the worshipers of free will!

They have another problem: Are we able to decide in heaven that we have changed our free wills about being there? I know of no one who says so, not even the rankest of Pelagians. When I have asked that question, the response has been that we will be sinless there. Of course we will! Praise God for that! But it doesn't change the question. Doesn't a sinless person have free will? If yes, then why can he not choose to cease being sinless and abandon Heaven? And if not, what happens to their insistence that free will is necessary?

More importantly, if he doesn't have free will in Heaven, then why? If the denial of free will, as the Arminian uses it, in this life creates automatons, and that is too horrible to contemplate, then why can we contemplate automatons in Heaven? 

Does this not prove that it is irrational to assert as a necessity that men have a free will, such that we are autonomous from the decrees of God? It clearly does. And worse, does it not represent the same temptation given to Adam by Satan (Genesis 3:5)? It is incumbent on the advocate of such free will to demonstrate a distinction. I deny that there is one..

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.

Faith, the Gift of God to the Elect Alone

Every Bible-believing Christian is distinguished by one doctrine: our justification before God is through fail alone. That was the message of Jesus (see the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax-Collector, Luke 18:9-14), Paul (such as Romans 3:28), the Old Testament prophets (such as Habakkuk 2:4), and the Reformers.

But rare is the person who asks an important question: Who has such saving faith? As I demonstrate here, faith is given to us by God; it is not something that we add to the cross work of Jesus.

The Arminian claims that God gives faith equally to all men, so that all men are equally enable to respond to the Gospel. However, the Bible says otherwise: "Not all have faith" (II Thessalonians 3:2). So, contrary to the claim of the Arminian, not all have faith.

So, then, who does? "Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness" (Titus 1:1). So the answer that Paul provides has three parts: faith, knowledge, and godliness. Thus, we aren't talking about a mere ability to believe, as is the basis of Arminianism. Paul restricts these gifts to God's elect. The elect are given faith by which to be justified, knowledge of the Gospel, and godly lives. Paul here gives an explanation of the content of the promise of Jesus in John 6:39: "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day."