MATTERS THAT MATTER

CALVINISM AND EVANGELISM

I realize that there are some Calvinists who are great evangelists. In light of what Calvinism teaches about salvation and damnation, however, I am convinced that Calvinists who evangelize do so in spite of Calvinism, and not because of Calvinism. That is, there is not one distinctive of Reformed doctrine that encourages or promotes evangelism of the lost. Just the opposite is true. A thorough understanding of what Calvin taught has been a great discouragement to reaching the lost with the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The great evangelist Charles Spurgeon is a man that hypo-Calvinists love to point to as proof that Calvinism does not undermine the Great Commission. A careful reading of all that Spurgeon believed, however, shows that he was at best an inconsistent Calvinist. He was a soul winner despite Reformed Theology and not because of Reformed Theology. In fact, as documented earlier, Spurgeon held to some views that actually undermine some of the most basic tenets of the Reformed faith. These same views contributed greatly to his effectiveness as an evangelist. Spurgeon also chose to preach to the lost as if Calvinism were not true. That is, he was willing to say to everyone that they could be saved. Yet he believed that only the elect could be saved. That is, although he may have (mostly) believed like a Calvinist, he often preached like a Biblicist. The Calvinist doctrines of sovereignty, predestination, election, reprobation, limited atonement, irresistible grace, regeneration before faith, total depravity, etc. all make evangelism incidental and not essential, despite what some Calvinists would like you to believe. Just as one who holds to antino mianism may live a very moral life, so one who holds to the anti-evangelistic doctrines of Calvinism may still be effective as an evangelist. Nevertheless, evangelism is neither encouraged by nor consistent with the Calvinist doctrines of salvation and damnation. This should be obvious to anyone who truly understands the distinctives of the Reformed faith.

WHY WITNESS?

Other than evangelizing simply because God tells you to, why would a Calvinist evangelize? The evangelist cannot, in the Calvinist scheme of things, really make a difference. As has been documented, both sides of Calvinism mitigate against a commitment to evangelism:

If all this is true, it seems legitimate to ask: Why witness? After all, the elect will be saved regardless, and the non-elect will be damned regardless. What difference, if any, will or can our witnessing for Christ make? A Calvinist may answer this question in two different ways. Sproul says:

Evangelism is our duty. God has commanded it. That should be enough to end the matter.⁵⁶⁷ This answer really gets to the heart of the Reformed view. Now the Calvinist has a nicer-sounding answer to this question as well. It does not, however, add anything of substance to the more abrupt answer, “God commands it.” To think it does is to miss the point. Admittedly, however, it does sound more appealing to say, as Sproul also says:

Evangelism is not only our duty; it is also a privilege. God allows us to participate in the greatest work in human history, the work of redemption.⁵⁶⁸

Taken by itself, what Sproul says here is perfectly scriptural. According to Calvinist logic, however, this statement would make Sproul a synergist, because if we can participate in the work of redemptionwe are at least in some sense helping God in the work of saving the lost. To the Calvinist, this is synergism. Getting back to the issue at hand, this soft answer does not change the meaning of the first and more abrupt statement. For Sproul also says:

God not only foreordains the end of salvation for the elect, he also foreordained the means to that end.⁵⁶⁹ The meansto that end, in Reformed Theology, is not a meansthat makes a difference. In Calvinism, the means is just as void of a free and meaningful choice as is the end. In other words, those who do witness cannot, by this logic, do anything but witness. As the salvation of a man does not requirea man to choose to be saved, so the means to the end (evangelism) does not requirethat a man evangelize. As surely as some will be saved, some will evangelize. Any apparent choice to be saved, or to evangelize so others can be saved, is only an illusion according to the logic of Reformed doctrine.

It seems especially reasonable to ask the Calvinist why he would witness to reprobates, since reprobates cannot be saved. Calvinists say they should do this out of obedience and becausethey are ignorant of who the savable elect are versus the unsavable reprobate. Spurgeon, who was unquestionably a great soul winner, admits that it at least seems logically inconsistent, not to mention a waste of time, to evangelize the reprobate. Nevertheless he says: Our Savior has bidden us to preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). He has not said “Preach it only to the elect,” and though that might seem to be the most logical thing for us to do, yet since he has not been pleased to stamp the elect in their foreheads or put any distinctive upon them, it would be an impossible task for us to perform. When we preach the gospel to every creature, the gospel makes its own division, and Christ’s sheep hear his voice, and follow him.⁵⁷⁰

I don’t know why it would be such an impossible task to identify the elect. God could surely direct us to them in the same way Calvinists say He directs, determines, and decrees everything that was, is, or will be. Spurgeon understood the logic of what I am saying. He just chose to ignore what Calvinism teaches or implies on this matter. Perhaps one of the seven wonders of the theological world is a conviction held by some and expressed so clearly by Spencer. He says:

Once the basic teachings of Calvinism are correctly understood, the heart becomes warm and the urgency of sharing the gospel with others becomes almost overwhelming.⁵⁷¹ Did I miss something? How does one get a sense of urgency about evangelizing the lost when “what will be, will be”? Iain Murray represents the position of most hypo-Calvinists in general and Spurgeon in particular as follows:

How can sinners be offered a salvation which Christ did not fulfill on their behalf? Spurgeon set that question aside as something which God has not chosen to explain.⁵⁷²

Despite the fact that Spurgeon tenaciously affirmed the Calvinist version of sovereignty, predestination, and election, which leaves no real room for human freedom or culpability, he still believed that a man would have no one to blame but himself if he ends up in hell. According to Iain Murray, Spurgeon insists that:

Those who hear the gospel and reject the Savior will not be able to plead that sovereignty prevented them from exercising the obedience of faith. None will be able to claim that God excluded them.

No, it is on account of sin alone, including the sin of unbelief, that unrepentant sinners will finally be condemned and lost forever.

Asked to explain such a mystery, Spurgeon constantly replied that it was not his business to do so.⁵⁷³ The culpability of the repentant sinner could only be “such a mystery” if the Calvinist doctrines of sovereignty, predestination, and election/ reprobation are true. There should be no doubt that Spurgeon fully realized how contradictory his position was. Spurgeon even says that:

I believe that man is as accountable as if there were no destiny whatsoever. Where these two truths [of divine sovereignty and human responsibility] meet I do not know, nor do I want to know.

They do not puzzle me, since I have given up my mind to believing them both.⁵⁷⁴

Just because Spurgeon does not care to resolve this problem, the problem for Calvinism does not go away. What Spurgeon says is that if I do not let it bother me, it is not really a problem after all. It is intellectually, if not spiritually, dishonest to view a man who faces the Calvinist version of a destiny as if he has the scriptural kind of freedom and responsibility with which he can respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the kind of “destiny” that Spurgeon believes in that makes a contradiction out of the kind of responsibility he also believes in. Calling it a mystery or a paradox or saying that it will be resolved in the next life will simply not do. If God, by definition, cannot make a square circle, then for exactly the same reason, God cannot reconcile the Calvinist version of destiny with the scriptural version of responsibility. The following quotes demonstrate the silly predicament in which the Calvinist doctrine has left the Calvinist.

... Unconditional election ... does not contradict biblical expressions of God’s compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.⁵⁷⁵

We believe that sovereign election does not contradict or negate the responsibility of man to repent and trust Christ as Savior and Lord.⁵⁷⁶ The question [of limited atonement] does not relate to the universal offer in perfect good faith in a saving interest, in Christ’s work on the condition of faith.⁵⁷⁷

... Our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith .⁵⁷⁸ God in the gospel expresses a bona fide wish that all may hear, and that all who hear, may believe and be saved.⁵⁷⁹ Have some Calvinists discovered a new kind of logic that allows contradictory propositions to be reconciled? The only kind of logic I am familiar with says that if the wishis bona fideand all may believe and be saved,then the distinctives of Calvinism cannot be true. If a man hasno faith and cannot havefaith, anything offered on the condition of faith cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be a valid offer.

It is simply irrational to say that salvation is offered in all seriousness to all who hear the gospel on condition of faith and repentance, and yet, say that these same people, by God’s decree, cannotmeet the condition of faith and repentance. You cannot reasonably affirm that faith is a consequence of unconditional election and the result of an irresistible grace and then say it is also a condition for salvation. How can a man have no say in anythingand yet reasonably be blamed and punished for everything? In an “Overview of Theology,” MacArthur says:

We teach that sovereign election does not contradict or negate the responsibility of man to repent and trust Christ as Savior and Lord.⁵⁸⁰ He goes on to say:

Nevertheless, since sovereign grace includes the means of receiving the gift of salvation as well as the gift itself, sovereign election will result in what God determines.⁵⁸¹ A sovereign God (if we hypothesize discounting God’s justice, holiness, mercy, and love) can hold men responsible for what they cannot do, and what He has sovereignly determined that they will be incapable of doing. Can, however, a sovereign God do so in accordance with justice? Does might make right? Suppose the President and Congress of the United States declare that all young men between the ages of 18 and 24 must join the military and then fight in a particular war. Suppose also that the President and Congress send buses to pick up all Hispanic men and have them driven to a camp away from the war where they are not released until after the war has ended. Now suppose that after the war has ended, the Hispanic young men are prosecuted for not fighting in the war. The President and Congress may have the power to hold these men responsible for not doing what they were unable to do, but can it be said that they are really responsible? The power of the Presidency and Congress may enable the President and Congress to hold men responsible for what they cannot do, and even what the President and Congress prevented them from doing. Can we say, however, that under such circumstances these Hispanic men are morally responsible for not defending their county? And more importantly, don’t such actions prove that the President and Congress are unjust and unreasonable? Essentially, this is the long and short of the Calvinist doctrines of unconditional election and damnation.

If the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement in particular and the Calvinist doctrines of salvation and damnation in general are true, the whole idea of a sincere offer is bogus at best. So why evangelize? The Calvinist contention that ignorance of who is and who is not among the elect is a good reason for preaching the gospel to all (as if it were for all and all could believe the gospel) simply does not work.

How does the fact that we are ignorant of who will or will not be saved make an offer that cannot be accepted any more valid than if we knew who is or is not elect? Ignorance may seem like a good excuse for evangelizing people who will be saved or lost regardless of whether or not you evangelize them, but it is not a very compelling reason. If the God who saves has no saving interest in a person, did nothing of a saving nature for that person, then the offer cannot be a valid offer when made to that person. Our ignorance is simply irrelevant to the validity of an offer. To illustrate the predicament the Calvinist version of evangelism poses, suppose we have a Calvinist believer I will call Carl and an unbelieving neighbor I will call John who are engaged in a conversation about spiritual matters. Suppose that John asks Carl some very basic questions that turn the conversation directly to the Calvinist doctrines of salvation and damnation. Suppose also that Carl decides to lay it all out on the table for his unbelieving neighbor, something I have never known a Calvinist to do. Imagine that as you enter the room, you hear the following:

John: Carl, I have heard many times that God loves me. I have also been told that because of His love for me, He sent His Son to die on the cross for my sins. Not only so, but I have also been told that if I believe in Him, I will go to heaven. Is this what you believe?

Carl: Well John, it is not quite that simple. I know God loves me and that Christ died for me. So I also know that I am going to heaven. I cannot, however, be sure that God has a saving interest in you, and, therefore, I cannot know if He loves you with a saving love or if He has chosen to save you as He chose to save me.

John: I do not understand. Are you saying that God does not have a saving interest in everyone? Are you saying that God has chosen to save some people and not others? Are you saying that Christ died for some people and not others?

Carl: Yes, I am saying just that. I am not, however, saying that I know God has no saving interest in you, or that I know He did not choose to save you or that Christ did not die for you. I am only saying that I do not know that God has a saving interest in you, or that He has chosen to save you or that Christ died for you. As far as I know, He has a saving interest in you, has chosen to save you, and that Christ did die for you.

John: But as far as you know, it may just as well be the case that He has no saving interest in me, has not chosen to save me, and that Christ did not die for me.

Carl: Exactly.

John: Is there anything I can do to be chosen?

Carl: No. That was settled in eternity past.

John: But doesn’t the Bible say that if I choose to believe, I can be saved?

Carl: No. It says if you believe, you will be saved.

John: What is the difference?

Carl: The difference is that believing is not a choice of man, but a gift from God.

John: So how do I get that gift of faith so that I can believe and be saved?

Carl: You will get that gift in time, whether you do anything or not, if you were chosen by God in eternity. If God chose to save you in eternity, then He will irresistibly draw or call you to Himself in time. If He did not choose to save you in eternity, He will not draw or irresistibly call you in time, whether you do anything or not.

John: What does it mean to be drawn or called?

Carl: It means you will be raised spiritually from the dead. When you are raised from the dead spiritually, you will be given a new life in Christ with a new nature. With that new life and new nature comes faith in Christ. In effect, you will be made a believer when you are born of the Spirit. On the other hand, if you were not chosen in eternity, you will not be drawn, raised from spiritual death, or given a new life, and, therefore, you cannot receive the gift of faith and thereby be saved.

John: It sounds like you are saying that I just have to accept whatever cards God has dealt me, and that there is nothing I can do to determine where I will spend eternity.

Carl: Exactly.

I know that most Calvinists, especially those who consider themselves mainstream, will not appreciate this little dialogue and will say that it is a terrible misrepresentation. It does, however, accurately reflect the implications of Calvinism, even though it will be met by protests from Calvinists. Packer rightly reasons that: The saving ministry of Jesus Christ is summed up in the statement that he is the “mediator between God and men.”⁵⁸²

While this is true, Packer could, though I doubt he would, say that the saving ministry of Jesus Christ is summed up in the statement that “He is the mediator between God and some men” or “God and elect men,” or “God and all kinds of men,” etc. Packer is also right when he says that: The mediator’s present work, which he carries forward through human messengers, is to persuade those for whom he achieved reconciliation actually to receive it (see John 12:32; Romans 15:18; 1 Corinthians 15:18-21; Ephesians 2:17).⁵⁸³ 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 is especially relevant to this discussion. In these verses Paul says:

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Notice that the ministryof reconciliation is to the world.This then must also be the messageof reconciliation, or as Paul called it, the word of reconciliation. Calvinism in general and Packer in particular would have us believe that God was in Christ reconciling the elect, and only the elect of the world. The Calvinist ministry and message is, therefore, a ministry and message to the elect of the world but not the world itself. An unbiased reading of Scripture does not support the Calvinist view of an efficient gospel to the elect only, but a powerful gospel as sufficient to save Gentiles who believe as it is to save Jews who believe. Consciously or not, Calvinists are onlylooking for the electof this world. By contrast, Jesus sent us to allthe lost of this world. THE EVANGELIST AND SALVATION In Romans 10:13-17, it is evident that God expects the lost to believe so that they can become saved. According to the apostle Paul, God also connects the evangelistic efforts of the evangelist to that salvation as a necessary part of the pre-salvation process. That is, God uses the saved to reach the lost. The lost have a responsibility to God to believe, and the saved have a responsibility to God andthe lost to proclaim the glorious good news of God’s grace and love.

Paul taught that what the lost do or do not do (such as believe or remain in unbelief) is the difference between getting saved or remaining lost. He also went a step further. That is, Paul also taught that what the saved are supposed to do, such as go to the lost and preach the gospel to them, is also essential to the process of getting them saved. To even think such thoughts makes a Calvinist very uneasy. In a universe where everything is already decided, allowing anyone but God to have a say in the outcome of anything, much less the salvation of a lost person, is a very disturbing and unsettling concept. Paul evidently did not feel this way at all.

More than once, Paul explicitly says that what he did was done to bring about the salvation of the lost and even the new birth of the spiritually dead. Paul saw no conflict in working to save those whom ultimately God alone can and does save. Paul had no trouble reconciling the fact that only God can and does raise the spiritually dead with the fact that in his ministry, and through his message to the lost, he had given new life through the new birth. That is, in fact, the essence of what evangelism is and does. Paul refers to what could accurately be called a ministry of provocation that was meant to lead to the regeneration and salvation of the unbelieving Jews. He even sees himself involved in the process of reconciling the world to God. The Calvinist is right to insist that ultimately only God can reconcile the spiritually alienated, regenerate the spiritually dead, and save the spiritually lost. He is wrong to say that our part in this divine process is passive, and by implication ineffective. In his letter to the Romans, Paul says: For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are myflesh and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? (11:13-15, emphasis added) In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul was so bold as to say:

I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. (9:19-22, emphasis added) Who does Paul think he is? Does he actually believe that by preaching the gospel of Christ, he has the right to say that he is winning people to God and thereby helping them get saved? What audacity to think that his efforts could lead to the salvation of the lost! Of course, Paul did not die on the cross for the sins of anyone. Paul did not see himself as a co-savior. Nevertheless, Paul confidently used the language of winning and saving in relationship to his evangelistic efforts. Can the Calvinist?

Paul knew better than most that the power was in the gospel and not in the preacher. He also knew, however, that preaching the powerful and precious gospel, the gospel that is the power of salvation to everyone who believes,was a necessary and effective means by which to get the lost saved. While he took none of the glory for the salvation of the lost to himself, giving it to the only One who deserves it, he did not minimize or undermine the role of the saved in reaching the lost. Earlier in 1 Corinthians Paul says:

Though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (4:15, emphasis added)

Paul did not think of himself as the source and giver of life. He did not think that he regenerated the Corinthian believers. He did, however, realize and stress how important our part is, as saved believers, in reaching the unbelieving lost. He could not have used stronger language to do so. Like Jesus, Paul spent much of his time declaring facts that encouraged faith in unbelievers. In other words, he gave unbelievers reasons to believe in Christ. In this way he was assisting God in the pre-salvation process that sometimes led to the salvation of the lost. Calvin seemed to recognize the importance and place of the evangelist, when he said in reference to Romans 11:14 :

Observe here that the minister of the word is said in some way to save those whom he leads to the obedience of faith. So conducted indeed ought to be the ministry of our salvation, as that we may feel that the whole power and efficacy of it depends on God, and that we may give him his due praise: we ought at the same time to understand that preaching is an instrument for effecting the salvation of the faithful, and though it can do nothing without the Spirit of God, yet through his inward operation it produces the most powerful effects.⁵⁸⁴ With 1 Corinthians 4:15 in mind, Calvin said that Paul:

... called himself father, and now he shows that this title belongs to him peculiarly and specially, inasmuch as he alone has begotten them in Christ ... he alone ought to be esteemed as the father of the Corinthian Church—because he had begotten it. And truly it is in most appropriate terms that he here describes spiritual generation, when he says that he has begotten them in Christ, who alone is the life of the soul, and makes the gospel the formal cause. Let us observe, then, that we are then in the sight of God truly begotten, when we are engrafted into Christ, out of whom there will be found nothing but death, and that this is effected by means of the gospel ... it is the incorruptible seed by which we are renewed to eternal life. Take away the gospel, and we will all remain accursed and dead in the sight of God. That same word by which we are begotten is afterwards milk to us for nourishing us, and it is also solid food to sustain us forever.⁵⁸⁵

Though I disagree with Calvin on many important issues, I would not accuse him of synergism because he recognizes a sense in which a man can save the lost and regenerate the spiritually dead. I understand what he means by the use of such terms because of the context in which he uses them. Calvinists owe non-Calvinists the same consideration.

CALVINISM AND PRAYER In a debate I had with a Calvinist, we were both asked the question: Does prayer change things? Predictably, the Calvinist, with only one exception, said no. The one exception was the impact that prayer has on the believer himself who prays. Admittedly, it does sound a lot better and much more spiritual to say that prayer changes the one who prays, than to say it changes nothing at all. As with evangelism, Calvinists will say with the rest of us that we are supposed to pray. They will also say that God has called us to pray. The consistent Calvinist, at least in theory, when he does pray, only does so in obedience to the God who says we should pray.

I do not want to give the impression that it is not good to do something out of simple obedience to the Lord. As with everything else, however, when God tells us to do something, there are usually a lot of good reasons for doing it. When God says not to do something, we can be sure that it is to our own detriment or even destruction if we do it anyway. If God says to do something, we can be sure it is to our benefit, ultimately if not temporally, if we do it. I do not think that it is controversial to say that whatever is to the glory of God is also to our good. The sheer emphasis on prayer in Scripture, in addition to what Scripture says about prayer, should serve as a very solemn correction, if not rebuke, to the implications of Calvinism relative to prayer. As with evangelism, I am not saying that Calvinists do not pray. Nor am I saying that Calvinist pastors and preachers do not encourage, urge, and even plead with believers within their sphere of influence to pray and to do so earnestly and regularly. I am sure many, if not most, do. I am saying that when Calvinists pray and encourage others to pray, and especially when they make biblical claims and promises relative to the value and rewards of praying, they do so in spite of, and not because of Calvinism. Many Calvinists will not like the way Joseph Wilson represents them and Calvinism. Nevertheless, it is easy to see how he can say what he says, given his commitment to the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. No man can believe in the glorious, Biblical doctrine of absolute predestination, and believe that prayer changes things. The two are incompatible. They do not go together. If one is true, the other is false. Since predestination is true, it follows as night follows day, that prayer does not change things.⁵⁸⁶

Given the Calvinist definition of absolute predestination, I would have to agree with Wilson. This issue alone should be enough to get a serious student of Scripture to reconsider the Calvinist version of predestination. It is too bad that this does not seem to concern many Calvinists. Perhaps less bluntly, but leaving the same impression, Calvinist James Wilmoth says that:

We know that God has predestined all things that happen. He works all things after the counsel of His own will. It is difficult to reconcile prayer and the unchanging will of God.⁵⁸⁷ David West is not so cautious. With extraordinary bluntness, he says:

Prayer does not change things, nor does it change God or His mind.⁵⁸⁸

Prayer does not change God or His mind. That is a red herring if there ever was one. It is to confuse God Himself with the things that God does in relationship to prayer. What about the contention of the Calvinist who says that while prayer does not change things, it does change us? Calvinist Dan Phillips puts it this way:

What God has predestinated to be will always come to pass as He has purposed, all the praying one can muster will not change that. No, prayer does not change things, however, it does change us.⁵⁸⁹ Would this mean that God has not predestined us to be the way we are without the assistance of our prayer? If the Calvinist says that God predestined that we would change and predestined we would change by means of prayer, why cannot the same be said for all things? How did we get out from under the predestination of God? Why can we say that prayer changes the one who prays, but that it cannot change that for which he prays? What if the one who prays, prays that he would change? If he changes, is it that he changed by virtue of the fact that he prayed, and not in answer to his prayer? Did God ignore his prayer because He had predestined to change him anyway, relative to the fact that, through prayer, He changes those who pray? I know all this sounds silly. It sounds silly because it is silly. Calvinists are theologically forced to alter so much that Scripture says to conform to so much that Scripture does not say. Ironically and so wrongly, Calvinist Robert Selph says:

Everyone is a Calvinist when on his knees in prayer.⁵⁹⁰ The fact is, virtually every Christian I know, including many Calvinists who may not admit as much, pray with the expectation that God hears and answers prayer. Many Calvinists will pray as if they believe it does change things, even if their theological convictions contradict them. Most Christians, Calvinists included, would not pray nearly as much if they did not really believe that God changes things through prayer. Contrary to praying in accordance with Calvinist convictions, most Christians, when on their knees, pray as if Calvinism is not true, Calvinists included. Calvinists, like the rest of us, have some good reasons to pray besides expecting God to change things.

Prayer should be and can be a wonderful time of communion. Prayer can and should be used to express our gratefulness and thankfulness to the Lord for all He has done for us, and what He has yet in store for us. During prayer, we can and should confess our sins, reflect on our ways, meditate on His Word, grace, goodness, and so much more. In effect, Calvinists have taken away, in their thinking and theology, an effective tool that God can and does use to accomplish His will in and through our lives and through our ministries. Consider for a moment what the apostle James said relative to prayer: Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful?

Let him sing psalms. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain; and it did not rain on the land for three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth produced its fruit. (5:13-18) Is prayer able to alleviate some suffering, or just divert our attention away from our suffering? If James was just trying to get suffering believers to think about something else, there were a lot of other ways for him to do this. Whatever kind of suffering we experience, prayer can help. It also sounds like James is saying that if you are sickand down,prayer can be used to get you welland up.Combined with confession, prayer can also result in forgiveness. If James is right, I’d say that prayer does change things, and for the better. Wouldn’t you? When prayer is said to be effectiveor that it avails much,it sounds as though God is getting something done through prayer. While I have no doubt that prayer does change the one who prays, James seems to believe it changes a lot of other things as well. Elijah is an exception to the old joke that says, “Everyone complains about the weather, but no one does anything about it. ”It would appear that through righteous and fervent prayer, God used Elijah to actually change the weather. Commenting on this portion of Scripture, Calvin said:

There is no time in which God does not invite us to himself. For afflictions ought to stimulate us to Pray. ... This custom of praying over one was intended to shew, that they stood as it were before God; for when we come as it were to the very scene itself, we utter prayers with more feeling; and not only Elisha and Paul, but Christhimself, roused the ardor of prayer and commended the grace of God by thus praying over persons . But it must be observed, that he connects a promise with the prayer, lest it should be made without faith. ... Whosoever then really seeks to be heard, must be fully persuaded that he does not pray in vain. . That no one may think that this is done without fruit, that is, when others pray for us, he expressly mentions the benefit and the effect of prayer. But he names expressly the prayer of a righteous or just man. ... Then James testifies that the righteous or the faithful pray for us beneficially and not without fruit. But what does he mean by adding effectual or efficacious? ... For if the prayer avails much, it is doubtless effectual . the sentence may be thus explained, “It avails much, because it is effectual”. As it is an argument drawn from this principle, that God will not allow the prayers of the faithful to be void or useless, he does not therefore unjustly conclude that it avails much. But I would rather confine it to the present case: for our prayers may properly be said to be working, when some necessity meets us which excites in us earnest prayer.

We pray daily for the whole Church, that God may pardon its sins; but then only is our prayer really in earnest, when we go forth to succor those who are in trouble. But such efficacy cannot be in the prayers of our brethren, except they know that we are in difficulties. Hence the reason given is not general, but must be specially referred to the former sentence. There are innumerable instances in Scripture of what [James] meant to prove; but he chose one that is remarkable above all others; for it was a great thing that God should make heaven in a manner subject to the prayers of Elias, so as to obey his wishes.

Elias kept heaven shut by his prayers for three years and a half; he again opened it, so that it poured down abundance of rain. Hence appeared the wonderful power of prayer. Well known is this remarkable history, and is found in 1 Kings 17 and 1 Kings 18. And though it is not there expressly said, that Elias prayed for drought, it may yet be easily gathered, and that the rain also was given to his prayers. But we must notice the application of the example. ...

We must then observe the rule of prayer, so that it may be by faith.

He, therefore, thus accommodates this example,—that if Elias was heard, so also we shall be heard when we rightly pray. ... Lest any one should object and say, that we are far distant from the dignity of Elias, he places him in our own rank, by saying, that he was a mortal man and subject to the same passions with ourselves.⁵⁹¹

Despite the implications of the system he championed, Calvin could not deny the potency of prayer. If believing that prayer can change things is incompatible with the Calvinist version of predestination, then it would seem we have an easy choice. If something has to be given up, let us hold fast to what Scripture says about prayer. Putting the power of prayer together with the need for evangelism, Jesus said to His disciples:

“The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.”

(Matthew 9:37-38)

I could easily cite dozens of examples where prayer is encouraged precisely because it can and does accomplish things. God could win the lost without us. He has chosen to do otherwise (Romans 10:13-17). God can do whatever He wants to do, whether we pray or not. He has chosen to use prayer to change things. Who are we to invent a theological system which pits God’s purposes in general against what God wants, wills, and does through His peoples’ prayers?

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH

God impartsrighteousness with the new nature. The new nature comes with the new life in Christ. New life in Christ comes with the new birth, when a spiritually dead sinner is raised from spiritual death by the exclusive and omnipotent power of God. Knowledgeable Calvinists will agree with what I have just said. Calvinists, however, cannot accept the scripturally based view that says God has determined to raise the spiritually dead sinner to life when and only when the lost sinner turns in faith to Jesus Christ for salvation. God also imputesrighteousness to a guilty sinner when, and on condition, the guilty sinner turns in faith to Christ. It is that wonderful and it is that simple. The Calvinist order of salvation,by placing faith after regeneration and before justification, has, theologically speaking, defeated the very purpose of justification by faith as articulated by Paul, and later championed by Luther.

Allow me to explain. The Judaizers of Paul’s day were putting theological roadblocks between the lost and the justification they so desperately needed. This was, by the way, the charge made by Luther and other Reformers against Rome. Justification is absolutely essential for a condemned sinner to stand with confidence before the infinitely holy and perfectly just Judge of the universe—namely God. For the Jews of Paul’s day, the roadblock between justification and the sinner came in the form of a requirement to keep the law in some form or fashion. The Judaizers argued that faith was necessary, but that it was not enough to make a sinner right before God. Therein is the problem. The sinner was unable to really keep the law, at least he was unable to keep it in a manner that would be pleasing to God and satisfy a perfectly holy God. There are other issues at stake in a legalistic approach at trying to obtain justification this way. The bottom line, however, was that instead of making it possible for a condemned sinner to be justified before God and accounted righteous, legalism kept the condemned sinner from the true and only way of justification and salvation, which is faith alone in Christ alone. By definition, if something is added to a sole requirement, the requirement cannot be met. If you are told that you can enter a building with only one briefcase, a second briefcase will bar you from the building. Even so:

If:

• It is faith alone that is the means by which God justifies us through the righteous merits of Christ and what He accomplished in His life and death on our behalf,

Then:

• Bringing something else with us—such as our supposed good works, fidelity to the law, or whatever is supposed to be a necessary or helpful complement to faith, actually makes faith alone in Christ alone impossible.

One reason these other supposed requirements represent such a serious error is that they keep the sinner from meeting the requirement of faith alone, thereby keeping the sinner from being justified. It was Paul’s desire that nothing stand between the lost and justification. If something stood between the sinner and justification, it would keep the sinner from the Savior and the full and free salvation He provides through His cross and offers in and through His gospel. It was as if Paul was saying, as to justification, forget and forsake everything but faith. Faith alone in Christ alone is not only all you need, it is all you can have. The Calvinist will agree with this. So how is it that I can say that Calvinism hinders the sinner from becoming justified by faith alone in Christ alone? If you believe that faith alone in Christ alone is all you need and all you can have, is that not enough? As a formula, it is enough, and in fact, it is scripturally perfect. The faith alone in Christ alone that is required for, and results in, justification is not, however, a mere formula. To be justified, the sinner does not simply agree that it is faith alone in Christ alone that results in justification. Rather, the sinner must havefaith alone in Christ alone to be justified. I believe it is possible, and probably quite common, for a person to be justified by faith alone in Christ alone without understanding or articulating this formula. On the other hand, a person may understand and be convinced of this formula without personally placing faith in Christ for justification. The important thing, from an evangelistic point of view, is to let the sinner know what the sinner has to do to become justified. What the sinner has to do to be justified is to believe in Christ. Nothing more and nothing less will do. We may need to give the sinner reasons to believe, but we must also encourage the sinner to believein Christ in order that the sinner can by justified by God. As Paul tells the believers in Rome: But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven? ’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss? ’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word offaith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame. ” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. ”

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!” (Romans 10:6-15) To be justified, God is not askingyou to do what is impossible for you to do (i.e., ascend into heaven, descend into the abyss). God is requiring that you do what you can and should do, which is to believe in Jesus Christ. By placing regeneration before faith and then saying God may not have decreed that you be born again, the Calvinist could be asking you to do the impossible. According to Calvinism, it is certain that some people were not decreed to be born again. It is equally certain, therefore, that they will not and cannot be born again. Thus, according to Calvinism, to say they must be born again is to ask of them the impossible. I am very doubtful that this is what Luther had in mind when speaking of the doctrine of justification by faith. I am absolutely certain this is not what Paul had in mind.

SYNERGISM—THE RED HERRING OF REFORMED THEOLOGY In The History of Christian Doctrine,Calvinist Louis Berkhof represents the Synod of Dort’sview of regeneration as follows:

Regeneration is regarded as strictly monergistic, and not at all the work of God and man. Without regenerating grace no one can turn to God, and none can accept the offer of salvation apart from an efficient act of God founded on election. Yet salvation is offered in all seriousness to all who hear the gospel on condition of faith and repentance. They who are lost will only have themselves to blame.⁵⁹² The first two sentences of this statement cannot be true if the second two sentences of this statement are true. It is simply amazing that the hypo Calvinist cannot see this as the contradiction that it is. Regeneration is also “strictly monergistic,” according to the non-Calvinist, if monergism does not exclude pre-regeneration faith as a condition of salvation. However, monergism, as Calvinists define the term, does just that. That is, Calvinists insist that if you do not believe regeneration comes before faith, then you are not a monergist.

Only God can redeem the lost, forgive the sinner, regenerate the spiritually dead, or justify the ungodly. In short, only God can and therefore only God does do anything of a saving nature in this most foundational and fundamental sense. Despite the loud and frequent protests of many Calvinists, anyone who understands and agrees with what I have just said is a biblical monergist. That is, if monergism is defined as the view that says God and God alone is the Savior and does all the saving of the sinner by grace and through faith, then all non-Calvinist Evangelicals are true monergists of the biblical kind. Monergism can, however, be defined unscripturally—as it is in Reformed Theology. The same can be said for just about any theological term. In the wrong hands, an otherwise good term can be used to convey a bad concept. So it is with monergism in the hands of a Calvinist. The Calvinist falsely accuses those who teach that faith is before regeneration of synergism. They commit the real fallacy of confusing faith with works. Doing so, they effectively make God the believer and the Savior of those He believes through. I would never deny that Calvin believed in a form of monergism. The kind of monergism that Calvinists embrace is, however, an unscriptural kind. By analogy, all true Trinitarians are monotheists, but not all monotheists are Trinitarians. Even so, all monergists believe that God and God alone saves, but not all monergists believe that God saves on condition of faith alone in Christ alone. The Calvinist error is in thinking that only those who deny faith as a condition of regeneration, and by extension salvation, are monergists. This represents a logical, definitional, and scriptural error. To affirm that salvation is the work (energeo) of only one (mono) is to affirm monergism. This assumes that we allow the meaning of the two parts of the word to determine the meaning of the whole word. Even if I were to concede that there is room for a legitimate debate as to who should be allowed to call themselves monergists, when Calvinists call non-Calvinist Evangelicals synergists, it is either due to ignorance, or to a desire to deliberately malign and grossly misrepresent the views of those with whom they disagree. That is, even if we concede that monergism excludes faith as a condition of salvation (something I don’t do), it would still not mean that a non-Calvinist is a synergist. To be a synergist you must hold that two or more agents make a contribution to whatever it is the agents are working to accomplish.

If you take two different chemicals and combine them to produce a certain result different from what you would get with either one of them alone, you have an illustration of a synergistic work. Two artists working on one painting would also be an example of synergism. Even if one artist contributes only one percent of the artistic effort, the final product would still be synergistic. Two or more voices in a song, or two or more musical instruments used together, make a synergistic sound. Even so, if God did almost all of the saving work and man contributed only a small fraction of the saving work in salvation, it could legitimately be said that salvation was accomplished synergistically. The person holding to such a view of salvation could legitimately be called a synergist. The Webster’s Dictionary of the English Languagesays that synergism is the:

Joint action of agents, as drugs, that when taken together increase each other’s effectiveness.⁵⁹³ According to The American Heritage Dictionary,synergism is: The action of two or more substances, organs, or organisms to achieve an effect of which each is individually incapable.⁵⁹⁴ The meaning is difficult to miss. If the believer, by believing, increased the effectiveness of God to save him, then faith as a condition would indeed make faith a contribution and constitute a synergistic view of salvation. If God relied upon or needed the faith of the believer to regenerate a person, then believing would be a work and salvation would be accomplished syner gistically. Then those who hold to the view that says salvation is just as much through faithas it is by gracewould be synergists. Conversely, they could not, by definition, be monergists.

Along with millions of other mainstream Evangelicals, I affirm that God and God alone can and does save the lost. I also explicitly and implicitly deny that a lost man can or does make any saving contribution to his own salvation. Still, as already noted, many Calvinists, either ignoring these facts or being ignorant of this truth, choose to pejoratively label all non-Calvinist Evangelicals as synergists. It is not just about being sticklers for self-serving definitions of theological terms. It is about distorting, knowingly or otherwise, the position of millions of non-Calvinist Evangelicals. One apparent advantage of this for Calvinists is that they feel they do not need to refute their theological opponents in a legitimate debate, because they have dismissed them by attributing views to them that every knowledgeable student of Scripture knows and agrees are unscriptural.

It would be the equivalent of me saying that Calvinists do not believe that God loves or cares for anyone.I would not say this because it is, in fact, not true. If I said it loud and often, however, some might believe me and dismiss authentic Calvinism for this faulty reason. In truth, Reformed Theology says that God only savingly loves some.Conversely, it says God does not savingly love some or He does not savingly love everyone.While I would like to see Christians reject the Calvinist doctrines of salvation and damnation, because I believe them to be unscriptural, I do not believe misrepresenting Calvinism and its doctrines can serve any legitimate purpose. Although I believe Calvinists are wrong, it would be dishonest of me to represent their view that says that God does not have a saving love for someby saying that Calvinists teach God does not have a saving love for any. By referring to non-Calvinist Evangelicals as synergists, Calvinists have committed the exact same kind of fallacy. It is very difficult for me to imagine that they do not know better. Mainstream non-Calvinist Evangelicals agree with Calvinists when they affirm that God alone is the Savior of the lost, or they would not be Evangelicals. On the other hand, if it can be proved that monergism cannot allow for a faith that leads to regeneration, then mo nergism must go because it denies what Scripture affirms. Conversely, if it is true that a biblically consistent monergism requires that a lost person believe in Jesus Christ in order to become a new creation in Christ Jesus, the Calvinists cannot legitimately claim to be biblical monergists, any more than Jehovah Witnesses can rightly claim to be biblical monotheists.

Ultimately, it simply does not matter how Calvinists define the term mo nergism. What matters is that salvation is through faithjust as it is by grace. For the record, in Isaiah 43:11, the Lord said to Israel:

I... am the LORD, and besides Me there is no savior. In Hosea 13:4, the Lord said to Israel:

I am the LORD your God . and you shall know no God but Me; for there is no savior besides Me. In 1 Timothy 4:10, the apostle Paul says to Timothy:

We trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

• Since there is only one savior, only one can and does save.

• Since God is the only Savior, it follows that only God can and does save.

• There are no other saviors and there are no co-saviors.

This is biblicalmonergism, if indeed monergism can be biblical. If a person has to deny the scriptural truth that faith is a pre-regeneration condition, then I will gladly disown this label and will leave it to the Calvinist who commits such a serious scriptural error. I am convinced, however, that it would be premature to surrender such a term to the Calvinist. I am willing to distinguish between a biblical monergism and a Calvinist monergism just as I am willing to concede the existence of a Unitarian monotheism as well as a biblical or Trinitarian monotheism.

Assuming there is something we can call biblical monergism, it must say that one and only one God can and does any work of a truly saving nature. Just as clearly, monergism, if it is to be biblical, must affirm that faith is a precondition to regeneration. Although Calvinists have tried to hijack the term monergism to be used exclusively for their distinctively Calvinist doctrines of salvation and damnation, anyone who believes that only God can and does save is a biblical monergist and cannot by definition be a synergist. Anyone who says that faith is a consequence of regeneration as opposed to a condition of regeneration cannot be a Biblicist or a biblical monergist.

• God and God alone regenerates the spiritually dead. In Ephesians 2:4-5 we read: God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).

Paul, however, goes on to say: By grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9, emphasis added)

• God and God alone justifies the ungodly. The apostle unequivocally says that:It is God who justifies. (Romans 8:33)

The apostle also asks and scripturally answers the question as to how and why God justifies those He justifies:

What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. (Romans 4:3-5)

• God and God alone redeems the lost. In Colossians 1:13-14 we read that God: ... has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

The appropriation, however, of the redemptive, forgiving, and cleansing blood of Christ is conditioned on faith in Christ. That is, God justifies those who believe. God justifies onlythose who believe and allthose who believe. The apostle Paul explains the relationship of faith to justification, redemption, and forgiveness as follows:

Now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works?

No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. (Romans 3:21-29, emphasis added)

There are many legitimate and substantial areas of disagreement between Calvinists and other mainstream Evangelicals. I, for one, am not only willing to acknowledge these differences but to shout them from the rooftops. It serves no good purpose, however, to manufacture areas of disagreement that do not in fact exist. Just because only God can and does save, does this mean, as Calvinists want us to believe, that man has no say in whether or not he goes to heaven or hell? That, of course, is what the Calvinist kind of monergism says. Because it is God’s job alone to save, does that mean the lost cannot be responsible to believe in God the Savior? Does unconditional election necessarily follow from a monergism that would pass the test of Scripture? Because man cannot make a contribution to the end that he might be saved, does it follow that he cannot meet a God ordained conditionso that he may be saved? By way of analogy, suppose a mother of a kindergarten-age child says that the child must choose between two different amusement parks before she will take the child to the one the child chooses. Suppose the child chooses amusement park Aover amusement park B.Although the choice made by the child is necessary to getting to the amusement park, the ability to actually get the child to the amusement park belongs to the mother. So it is with the will of man or the faith required of a man to get saved and go to heaven. The fact that God requires that we choose to believe does not mean that our choice or faith in Christ gives us the ability to save ourselves or to get into heaven. Neither choosing to believe in Christ nor believing in Christ saves a lost person. That is, there is no power in our choice. Why should Calvinists argue with God over the way He chooses to do that which only He can and in fact does do? Why should the Calvinist deny God the divine prerogative to save the lost by grace through faith?

POWER IN PREACHING THE GOSPEL The apostle Paul says:

I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes. ... (Romans 1:16) In his comments on Romans 1:16, Calvin says:

... Observe how much Paul ascribes to the ministry of the word, when he testifies that God thereby puts forth his power to save; for he speaks not here of any secret revelation, but of vocal preaching.

It hence follows, that those as it were willfully despise the power of God, and drive away from them his delivering hand, who withdraw themselves from the hearing of the word.⁵⁹⁵

Admittedly it sounds like Calvin gets it. No secret revelation,hidden counsel, or deeper truth involved. The gospel proclaimed to the lost is the power to save the lost—right? But Calvin immediately goes on to say: At the same time, as [God] works not effectually in all, but only where the Spirit, the inward Teacher, illuminates the heart, he subjoins, “To every one who believeth” The gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but the power of it appears not everywhere: and that it is the savor of death to the ungodly, does not proceed from what it is, but from their own wickedness. By setting forth but one Salvation he cuts off every other trust. When men withdraw themselves from this one salvation, they find in the gospel a sure proof of their own ruin. Since then the gospel invites all to partake of salvation without any difference, it is rightly called the doctrine of salvation: for Christ is there offered, whose peculiar office is to save that which was lost; and those who refuse to be saved by him, shall in find him a Judge.⁵⁹⁶ THE UNBELIEF OF THE UNBELIEVING In John 10:26, we hear Jesus saying to the unbelieving Jews in His audience:

“You do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.” At the heart of the Calvinist interpretation of this verse is the misguided notion that the still unbelieving elect, which is a theological oxymoron, belong to Christ before they actually believe. The Calvinist could say (though I doubt most would say this) that although certain men do not believe, they are still Christ’s sheep. Suppose Jesus is standing in front of an elect man who is still an unbeliever. Would Jesus have said to him: “Although you do not yet believe, because you are one of the elect, you are nonetheless one of My sheep”?

Probably no verse of Scripture is used more by Calvinists to proveunconditional election and the Reformed order of salvation,which says that faith in Christ follows regeneration in Christ, than John 10:26. Hagopian speaks for all Calvinists when he says:

Note that Jesus does not say that they are not His sheep because they do not believe, but rather, that they do not believe because they are not His sheep ...⁵⁹⁷

It is true that they do not believe because they are not His sheep. That is not in dispute. There is, however, a more basic question. Why are they not His sheep? Are they not His sheep because He did not elect them? And of course, does this mean, as Calvinists contend, that they cannot believe because they are not elect or because they were born into an irreversibly unable to believecaste? A closer look at this context makes such an interpretation very unlikely. Reasoning and pleading with the same people that He says are not His sheep, Jesus also says:

“If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” (John 10:37-39, emphasis added) The works that Jesus did served as a stepping stone to faith in Him for those willing to examine the significance of what He had done. In light of what our Lord was doing in full view of these men, which they could not deny, He is asking them to put their trust in Him. He is appealing to these unbelievers to becomebelievers. He is giving them reasons forbelieving. If they were incapable of becoming believers because they were not His sheep, this appeal would make no sense. If it is possible for them to “know and believe,” then those that are not His sheep because of unbelief could, through faith in Christ, become His sheep. What is the answer to the question, why are they not His sheep?It is to be found earlier in this same book. As Jesus says to them:

“You do not have[the Father’s] word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they that testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:38-40, emphasis added) Their problem was that they did “not believe.” The Calvinist interpretation of this verse makes unbelief the fruitof their problem as opposed to the rootof their problem. It makes reprobation the root of their problem, of which unbelief is merely the fruit. The fact is, they were “not willing to come to” Christ. They were not unable, as Calvinism insists. To say, “You do not believe because you are not My sheep,” is the equivalent of saying “You do not believe Me because you are not a Christian, or are not one of Christ’s disciples.” Faith is a condition for becoming a Christian. Faith is a characterization of being a Christian. In other words, if you were a Christian or one of Christ’s disciples, you would believe in Christ. No matter what else may be said of a Christian, a disciple of Christ, or one of Christ’s sheep, it can be said that they believe.That is why the word believeris a synonym for the word Christianor the words Christian disciple.If you do not believe in Christ, however, you are not a Christian, a disciple of Christ, or one of Christ’s sheep. Show me one of our Lord’s sheep and I will show you a person who believes in Jesus Christ. Show me someone who does not believe in Jesus Christ and I will show you someone who is not one of His sheep. From the human side of the salvation transaction, faith is howwe are saved, or as Paul and Silas said, it is what a man must do to be saved (Acts 16:27-31). You do not become one of our Lord’s sheep, a Christian, or a disciple of Christ beforeyou believe, but whenyou believe. Calvinism would have us believe that the elect, and the elect alone, are His sheep even while they are lost unbelievers. The rest are not really sheep at all. They were, therefore, never really lost sheep. Instead they were goats, are goats, and will always be nothing but goats. Calvinists love to quote the Scripture which says:

“. the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.”(John 10:3-4) This passage of Scripture, however, poses some serious problems for Reformed Theology. First of all, Calvinists believe that the elect are:

• spiritually dead until they are born again,

• guilty and condemned sinners until they are justified, and

• lost in every conceivable way until the Lord finds them.

In other words, they are just as totally depraved and just as totally unable to believe as any of the lost who are not among the elect. So how then can a person in such a deplorable condition hear anything? According to Calvinism, dead men, and I must assume dead sheep, cannot hear anything the Lord might say to them while dead. Notice, however, that the text does not say that His sheep will hear His voice after they are raised from spiritual death, justified by faith, or saved by God.

Calvinists tell us that it is absurd to think the spiritually dead could believe in Christ while still dead. If His sheep can only hear His voice after He raises them to spiritual life in Christ, however, then the sheep that hear His voice are saved sheep. Thus, His sheep that hear His voice are one and the same as Christian believers that are already saved. This text says four very positive things about His sheep. Not even one of these four important things is true of unbelievers.

1. His sheep hear his voice.

2. His sheep know his voice.

3. He leads his sheep.

4. His sheep follow him.

Calvinists admit that the unsaved elect are incapable of hearing and knowing the Lord’s voice. Calvinists admit that the unsaved are not led by the Lord and do not follow the Lord. Once an unbeliever becomes a believer, however, he hears and knows the Lord’s voice. Once an unbeliever becomes a believer, the Lord does begin to lead him and he does begin to follow the Lord. The Calvinist has it exactly backwards. What Jesus is telling His detractors is that their unbelief in Him is responsible for excluding them from this special relationship to Him. The only thing that stands between them and Him is their unbelief in Him. The only bridge to Christ is faith in Him.

It is true that our Lord can and does view people as His own even before they come to Him in saving faith. This passage does not, however, say what the Calvinist needs it to say to support the Calvinist doctrine of an unconditional election. The Good, Great, and Chief Shepherd does love His sheep with a saving love, and did die as a Lamb without spot or blemish for them. He did this for them before they were His sheep so that they could become His sheep. He did the same, however, even for those who will never be among His sheep. OUR LORDS MIRACLES AND FAITH IN HIM Let us now consider the reason John said he recorded the miracles found in his gospel. He says:

These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.(John 20:31) Commenting on this verse, Calvin goes even further than what I am suggesting when he refers to eternal life as the:

... effect of faith ... what is sufficient for obtaining life.⁵⁹⁸ This means that eternal life follows faith and does not precede it. Calvin also says:

Here John repeats the most important point of his doctrine, that we obtain eternal life by faith, because, while we are out of Christ, we are dead, and we are restored to life by his grace alone.⁵⁹⁹

While I do not believe faith is the cause and eternal life the effect, as seems to be said here, I do believe that as a causeprecedes an effect, faith comes before eternal life and leads to eternal life—not as a cause of eternal life but as a conditionfor eternal life. Notice that the signs of John’s Gospel are recorded so we can:

• Believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

We believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, so that we:

• May have life in His name.

REPENTANCE AND FAITH

If, as many Calvinists would agree, faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin, then it must follow that if an unregenerate man is unable to believe, he must also be unable to repent. As to faith and repentance, at least in the initial sense, I would agree with those Calvinists who believe that when a man believes in Christ, he also necessarily repents. Conversely, I also believe that when a man repents, he also necessarily believes. You cannot do one without doing the other. On the Day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter, while preaching to the Jews that were gathered, said:

“Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying,

“Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. (Acts 2:36-41)

Peter’s call to repentance was a call from unbelief,evidenced as a rejection of Christ as the Jewish Messiah and Savior of the world. It was also a call to faith in Christas their Messiah and Savior. This does not suggest that Christians are not supposed to repent of particular sins, when they commit them, or of a sinful pattern, if and when they fall into such a pattern. Only that in this initial and primary sense, a person is to repent fromunbelief and rejection of Jesus Christ tofaith in and acceptance of Jesus Christ. This was essentially the same message delivered by Paul and Silas to the suicidal jailor in Philippi (Acts 16:27-31).

Paul tells us that God:

... commands all men everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30) Is it really possible, as the Calvinist would have us believe, that God does not really intend for many to repent; that He was commanding them to do what He knew they were incapable of doing and had no interest in making it possible for them to do it? Conversely, are we supposed to believe that He was commanding the elect to do what they could not help but do? This would be like commanding rain from cloudless skies and from clouds filled with moisture. In both cases, you would be wasting your words. In the first case, the commandment is meaningless because it cannot happen. In the second instance, the commandment is meaningless because it would happen anyway. Or could it be that God is only commanding all kinds of men everywhere to repent? Can this mean that God only means for some men to repent? Could it be that He is not really commanding all men to repent? Or could it be that God is really commanding all men everywhere to do what they cannot do by His design and decree? Calvinism will simply not let a Calvinist accept what the text says and implies by what it says. Namely, that all men everywhere are commanded to repent, should repent, and can repent if they choose to do so.

WHY DO THE LOST PERISH? In light of Calvinism, it would also seem reasonable to ask why Paul would say concerning those ultimately lost that:

... [they] perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. (2 Thessalonians 2:10) Commenting on this verse, Calvin says:

Lest the wicked should complain that they perish innocently, and that they have been appointed to death rather from cruelty on the part of God, than from any fault on their part, Paul shews on what good grounds it is that so severe vengeance from God is to come upon them— ... of their own accord they refused salvation. ... And unquestionably, while the voice of the Son of God has sounded forth everywhere, it finds the ears of men deaf, nay obstinate, and while a profession of Christianity is common, yet there are few who have truly and heartily given themselves to Christ. . It is asked whether the punishment of blindness does not fall on any but those who have on set purpose rebelled against the gospel. I answer, that this special judgment by which God has avenged open contumacy, does not stand in the way of his striking down with stupidity, as often as seems good to him, those that have never heard a single word respecting Christ .⁶⁰⁰ THE FAITH FACTOR

Repeatedly in the preceding chapters we have seen how Reformed Theology undermines and even denies the importance and place that Scripture gives to faith in the salvation of the lost. In contradistinction, the apostle Peter says to Cornelius and company:

Whoever believes in[Jesus Christ] will receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

According to this verse, Peter doesn’t concern himself or his hearers with which of them are elect and which are reprobate. His only concern—and the only concern Cornelius and company should have—is about how they are going to respond to Jesus Christ—His provision for salvation and His offer of eternal life. The apostle Paul also tells us:

Whoever believes on[Jesus Christ] will not be put to shame. (Romans 9:33)

Faith in Christ makes all the difference and insofar as the responsibility of the lost is concerned, it is the only difference that really matters. Nowhere are we told we will suffer eternal damnation if we are not elect, as the Calvinist tells us (at least by implication). All throughout the New Testament, however, it is clear that we will be held accountable if we choose not to believe in Jesus Christ. If you are familiar with the passage just referenced (Acts 16:27-31) and the story of the Philippian jailer, you will remember that God had opened the prison doors where Paul and Silas were being held. Luke tells us: The keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.”

Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (emphasis added)

It does not matter which translation you read. The question is always directly to the point. The answer is always simple, sufficient, and the same.

Q-What must I do to be saved?

A-Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.(KJV) Q-What must I do to be saved?

A-Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.(NIV) Q-What must I do to be saved?

A-Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.(NRSV) Q-What must I do to be saved?

A-Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.(NASB) George Ricker Berry, in his Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, translates this all-important question:

What is necessary for me to do, that I might be saved?⁶⁰¹ According to Berry, the answer Paul and Silas gave to that question is (not surprisingly):

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ .. .⁶⁰²

Calvin says: This is but a short, and, to look to [sic], a cold and hungry definition of salvation, and yet it is perfect to believe in Christ. For Christ alone hath all the parts of blessedness and eternal life included in him, which he offers to us by the gospel; and by faith we receive them, as I have declared. ... And here we must note two things; first, that Christ is the mark where faith must aim. ... Secondly, we must note, that after we have embraced Christ by faith, that alone is sufficient to salvation.⁶⁰³

If faith in Christ is the sole andsufficient condition for salvation, an unconditional election to salvation in the Calvinist sense must simply be an unscriptural invention of Calvinism. Calvinists would have us believe that this suicidal jailer, by asking this question, was manifesting the new birth. This is because Calvinists teach that no one will (or even can) want Christ until after they have been born again. If so, the proper Calvinist rendering should be something like:

Since you are asking the question you must already be born again.

Since you are already born again, you already have faith in Christ.

Since you already have faith, which is the result of regeneration and necessary to justification, you need not do anything. You do not even need to be saved. Your very question, assuming you are sincere, makes clear that you are already saved.

Spurgeon saw the fallacy in this kind of thinking:

If I am to preach faith in Christ to someone who is regenerated, then the man who is regenerated is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. ... This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners.⁶⁰⁴

Spurgeon parts company here with his Calvinist friends, but his point is well taken. That is, if a person has to be regenerated to believe, then they cannot respond to the gospel until after they are born again. Once the person is born again, he is given faith, according to Calvinism. Once he has faith, he is justified, and once justified, he is saved. Let the Calvinist protest all he wants, as he no doubt will. This is not a misrepresentation of Reformed Theology. Even emphatic denials cannot change the fact that this is the Calvinist view, no matter how strange it may seem.

Now, would all or even most Calvinists state their views in the way I have just described? Of course not! But if you put all the pieces of the Calvinist puzzle together, this is the only picture that emerges. How sad and tragic a picture it is! The apostle Paul would have us contrast the plight of unbelievers with God’s promise to a believer. Whereas the believer can and will obtain to glory, unbelievers will:

... perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Andfor this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)

Those said to perish are perishing because they did not receive the love of the truth.They are left under condemnation because they did not believe the truth.Logically speaking, these people perish or remain condemned because they do not believe. If they would believe, they would not perish and would therefore be free of condemnation. To say someone will not perish is also to say they will be saved. Unbelievers are justified byor throughfaith in Christ, and thus, are saved by God on the conditionof faith in Christ. Sometimes this is referred to as salvation from the penalty of sin.It can be said that God’s decision to save is the most important factor. If God did not choose to save, no one would ever be saved.

MORE ON NEW TESTAMENT GREEK AND FAITH AS A GIFT As stated earlier, Calvinists argue that those who know New Testament Greek well agree with the Calvinist view concerning faith as a gift, thus supporting the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. Ephesians 2:8-10 usually serves as a scriptural star witness on behalf of Calvinism. Normally, I would not argue for or against a scriptural view based upon the reading of the Greek since I believe that our standard translations are more than adequate to represent the meaning and message of the Greek New Testament. Since, however, many Calvinists insist that New Testament Greek makes an even stronger case than any English translation for the Calvinist interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-10, I will include some relevant comments from recognized New Testament Greek scholars. For example, A. T. Robertson, in Word Pictures in the New Testament, says in reference to the words “is the gift of God,” that Paul has salvation itself in mind, which is graciously given by God. He says that it is not a reference to the faith by which that salvation is received.⁶⁰⁵

Alford says:

It (the salvation) has been effected by grace and apprehended by faith. The word “that” is touto, “this,” a demonstrative pronoun in the neuter gender. The Greek word “faith” is feminine in gender and therefore touto could not refer to “faith.” It refers to the general idea of salvation in the immediate context. The translation reads,

“and this not out from you as a source, of God (it is) the gift.” That is, salvation is a gift of God. It does not find its source in man. Furthermore, this salvation is not “out of a source of works.” This explains salvation by grace. It is not produced by man nor earned by him. It is a gift from God with no strings tied to it. Paul presents the same truth in Romans 4:4-5 when speaking of the righteousness which God imputed to Abraham, where he says: “Now, to the one who works, his wages are not looked upon as a favor but as that which is justly or legally due. But to the one who does not work but believes on the One who justifies the impious, his faith is imputed for righteousness.”⁶⁰⁶ Terry L. Miethe explains that: In the Greek text of Ephesians 2:8 (“by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God”) there is only one pronoun, not two ... the pronoun is neuter in gender, while “faith” is feminine. According to all grammatical rules, the gift to which the verse refers cannot be faith. The gift is salvation, which none can merit.⁶⁰⁷ In Kenneth Wuest’s Word Studies in the Greek New Testament,concerning Ephesians 2:8-10, we read that: The words “through faith” speak of the instrument.⁶⁰⁸ That is, faith is the means by which we receive the gift. It is not and should not be confused with the gift itself, as it is in Reformed Theology. J. I. Packer concedes:

Whether “this” refers to faith simply, or to salvation-through-faith as a whole, is not quite certain.⁶⁰⁹ Even so, he immediately goes on to say:

... On either view Paul is saying that faith springs from spiritual co-resurrection with Christ .⁶¹⁰ Where does it say this? This passage says that salvation is by grace and that it is through faith.It does not say that faith is by grace, as Packer and Reformed Theology insist. What if someone said that, “grace is not really that bywhich we are saved but it comes with salvation”? The Calvinist would argue that this misses the point. The Calvinist would say that Paul wants the Ephesian believers to know that they were saved by graceand therefore plainly says so. This is no different, however, than a Calvinist saying that we are not really saved through faith, but that faith is a part of the total salvation package. Just as God wanted the Ephesian believers to know they were saved by grace,He wanted them to know they were saved by grace through faith.Thus, He plainly says they were saved ... through faith, just as He plainly says they were saved by grace. In effect, what Packer has done is to say that even if I cannot use the “faith is a gift” argument by an appeal to Greek grammar, I can still use the argument. The argument then is not based on what the text says, but on what Calvinism, apart from the text,says it must mean if Calvinism is true. Now, I do not believe you need to be a Greek scholar to understand and appreciate what Paul is teaching in Ephesians 2:8-10. Nor do I believe that a Greek scholar’s understanding or appreciation of this text is necessarily better than that of a non-Greek scholar. Since Greek scholars disagree among themselves, just as do non-Greek scholars, one should not let the fact that someone says they know Greek settle matters of great biblical and theological importance.

Most (if not all) of the first century heretics knew Greek quite well. I only quote these men to dispel a common myth that seems to carry weight with some and is promoted by many Calvinists. The myth to which I refer says that an understanding of New Testament Greek necessarily leads to the Calvinist conviction that faith is a gift in the Calvinist sense.