Monergism vs. Synergism - Part 1

Download a free PDF of this article

Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism

In 1914, B.B. Warfield gave a series of lectures at Princeton. The lectures were later compiled into a book; The Plan of Salvation¹. In the section titled Autosoterism, Warfield states:

There are fundamentally only two doctrines of salvation: that salvation is from God, and that salvation is from ourselves. The former is the doctrine of common Christianity; the latter is the doctrine of universal heathenism.

These two doctrines of salvation are known as Monergism and Synergism. In this article, I will attempt to define and illustrate each view; in a subsequent article, I will look at the Apostle John's affirmation of Monergism in his Gospel. In a third article, I will present an edited transcript of a sermon that I preached on the topic; in a fourth article, I will look at each views inherent implications to the Great Commission.

Definitions

Theopedia defines Monergism as "the belief that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects the regeneration of Christians "; and defines Synergism as "essentially the view that God and humanity work together, each contributing their part to accomplish salvation in and for the individual."

Got Questions Ministries (in an article titled Monergism vs. synergism - which view is correct?) provides a similar definition of both terms:

Monergism, which comes from a compound word in Greek that means "to work alone," is the view that God alone effects our salvation.

Synergism, which also comes from a compound Greek word meaning "to work together," is the view that God works together with us in effecting salvation.

John Hendryx (in his article titled Monergism vs. Synergism) writes:

Synergism is the doctrine that the act of being born again is achieved through a combination of human will and divine grace.

Hendryx also notes:

Synergists believe that faith itself, a principle standing independent and autonomous of God's action of grace, is something the natural man must add or contribute toward the price of his salvation.

In contrast, he shows that Monergism teaches:

Salvation is entirely a work of God… man can contribute nothing toward the price of his salvation and that one is saved wholly and unconditionally by grace through faith.

J.I. Packer, in his introductory essay to John Owen's Death of Death², gives further explanation of the difference between the two salvation views. He writes:

Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself.

One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God's gift of salvation, the other as man's own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it. [4]

The conflict between these two views is not new. It has existed for close to 1600 years of church history. Let us take a journey to the 5th century and look at the contention between Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism. Each of these views approached man's participation in salvation differently.

1. Augustinianism - Salvation accomplished by God alone
2. Pelagianism - Salvation accomplished by man alone
3. Semi-Pelagianism - Salvation accomplished by God and man working together

The divergent views are sourced in their presuppositions regarding the effect of the sin of Adam on man's spiritual nature and the condition of his heart. In my understanding it has helped to define the views in their approach to the spiritual deadness of man.

1. Augustinianism - the completely-dead view
2. Pelagianism - the not-dead view
3. Semi-Pelagianism - the mostly-dead view

Augustinianism

The Augustinian view declares that Adam's sin has brought spiritual incapacitation to mankind. Man not only cannot but will not do anything that is pleasing to God. In presenting the completely-dead view, Theopedia shows Augustinianism affirming:

Due to the corruption of human nature in the Fall, one's will is not free, but rather a slave to sin. As such, every person is born sinful and justly under the condemnation of God. In order for a person to be delivered from this dreadful state (i.e. saved), God must intervene.

In his Outlines of Theology, A.A. Hodge, with regard to original sin, notes: "every man brings into the world with him a nature already so corrupt, that it can do nothing but sin."

Philip Schaff, who devotes a fair number of pages in his History of the Christian Church³ to a discussion of the divergent views, writes:

To understand Augustine's doctrine of the fall of man, we must remember, first of all, that he starts with the idea of the organic unity of the human race, and with the profound parallel of Paul between the first and the second Adam; that he views the first man not merely as an individual, but at the same time as the progenitor and representative of the whole race, standing to natural mankind in the same relation as that of Christ to redeemed and regenerate mankind. [824]

Pelagianism

In contrast to Augustinianism, the Pelagian view affirms that Adam's disobedience only affected him, and that individuals are born with the innocence with which Adam was created. Man therefore has the capability to choose whether or not to follow in Adam's disobedience.

In presenting the not-dead view, Theopedia shows Pelagianism teaching:

That man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.

Warfield notes:

The Pelagian scheme therefore embraces the following points. God has endowed man with an inalienable freedom of will, by virtue of which he is fully able to do all that can be required of him. To this great gift God has added the gifts of the law and the gospel to illuminate the way of righteousness and to persuade man to walk in it; and even the gift of Christ to supply an expiation for past sins for all who will do righteousness, and especially to set a good example. Those who, under these inducements and in the power of their ineradicable freedom, turn from their sins and do righteousness, will be accepted by the righteous God and rewarded according to their deeds.

Schaff contrasts Pelagianism with Augustinianism and notes:

The soul of the Pelagian system is human freedom; the soul of the Augustinian is divine grace. Pelagius starts from the natural man, and works up, by his own exertions, to righteousness and holiness. Augustine despairs of the moral sufficiency of man, and derives the new life and all power for good from the creative grace of God. The one system proceeds from the liberty of choice to legalistic piety; the other from the bondage of sin to the evangelical liberty of the children of God. [787]

He adds:

The one loves to admire the dignity and strength of man; the other loses itself in adoration of the glory and omnipotence of God. The one flatters natural pride, the other is a gospel for penitent publicans and sinners. [788]

R.C. Sproul (in an article titled, Augustine and Pelagius) writes:

Pelagius recoiled in horror at the idea that a divine gift (grace) is necessary to perform what God commands. For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it.

Dave Noffsinger (in an article titled Calvinism Illustrated) affirms the Pelagian view in the following illustration:

1. I chose from birth to love my younger daughter because I thought it was my right as the father and chose to hate my eldest daughter because of that same right. Neither child had done anything right or wrong but because of my sovereign will I simply chose to hate one and to love the other.
2. Because of this choice, I would send the eldest out into the world and cut her completely from my will and fellowship while lavishing both gifts and love upon the younger daughter. I choose to never to have anything else to do with the eldest while holding the younger in the highest esteem.
3. As a matter of fact, I even decided to see the eldest (who has done nothing to me) suffer eternal punishment of the most horrible kind because of this hatred.
4. I tell everyone now that I am really a loving father: both kind and generous.

In his first and third points, he declares the innocence of his children; as a result, he concludes that choosing one of the innocents over the other is "ungodly." My comment on that post which, not surprisingly, has never appeared:

Your illustration fails at this point:

3 As a matter of fact, I even decided to see the eldest (who has done nothing to me) suffer eternal punishment...

The truth is that all men have NOT "done nothing." We have freely and willfully turned our backs on God, rejected Him, and hated Him.

We should be amazed that He has offered mercy and grace to any of His enemies, when He was in no way obligated to do so.

Michael S. Horton (in his article titled Pelagianism: The Religion of Natural Man) points out that "Pelagianism was condemned by more church councils than any other heresy in history."

Semi-Pelagianism

In an attempt at maintaining the natural ability of man to choose, while at the same time denying his innocence, Semi-Pelagianism insists that spiritual deadness does not incapacitate.

In presenting the mostly-dead view, Theopedia shows Semi-Pelagianism "aimed at a compromise between Pelagianism and Augustinianism." The article notes, with regard to man, that his "nature is neither good nor bad, but injured." Man therefore is in need of God's grace, but retains the ability "to decide whether he wants God's grace."

Got Question Ministries (in an article titled What are Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism?) notes:

Semi-Pelagianism essentially teaches that humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that we cannot cooperate with God's grace on our own. Semi-Pelagianism is, in essence, partial depravity as opposed to total depravity.

Schaff observes that Semi-Pelagianism, while attempting to reconcile the above views,

Rejects the Pelagian doctrine of the moral roundness of man, but rejects also the Augustinian doctrine of the entire corruption and bondage of the natural man, and substitutes the idea of a diseased or crippled state of the voluntary power. [858]

In introducing his readers to John Cassian, whom Schaff describes as the "head of the Semi-Pelagian party," Schaff notes that Cassian taught:

That the divine image and human freedom were not annihilated, but only weakened, by the fall; in other words, that man is sick, but not dead, that he cannot indeed help himself, but that he can desire the help of a physician, and either accept or refuse it when offered, and that he must cooperate with the grace of God in his salvation. [861]

Shelton Smith, President of Sword Of The Lord Publishers and Editor of their newspaper, in an article titled The Case Against Calvinism⁴, affirms the Semi-Pelagian view when he writes:

Calvin's total-depravity teaching did not properly represent the condition of unsaved men. When the Bible describes the sinful condition of man, there is no question that he is depraved and totally so. Man is not inherently good; he is by nature a sinner.

But man's total depravity must not be defined as total inability. The fact is that God has made arrangements for our salvation, and He is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (II Pet. 3:9).

So a man is totally depraved (a sinner), but he can come to Christ if he will do so. He has the ability to come to Christ - he can if he will.

Schaff, in summarizing the 3 views, uses the terms Monergism and Synergism to define each.

The Greek church adhered to her undeveloped synergism, which coordinates the human will and divine grace as factors in the work of conversion; the Latin church, under the influence of Augustine, advanced to the system of a divine monergism, which gives God all the glory, and makes freedom itself a result of grace; while Pelagianism, on the contrary, represented the principle of a human monergism, which ascribes the chief merit of conversion to man, and reduces grace to a mere external auxiliary. [786]

The View of Scripture

My pastor is quite fond of saying, "What does the text say?" After all, one's theology must be defined by Scripture, and not Scripture defined by one's theology. In Genesis 3:8, we learn that after their sin our first parents "hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden." We might well refer to this event as the first game of hide and seek; notice that it was the man who hid and God sought. In Romans, the Apostle Paul establishes that all mankind follow doggedly in their footsteps.

Romans 3:9-18

⁹ What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. ¹⁰ As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; ¹¹ There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. ¹² They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one." ¹³ "Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips"; ¹⁴ "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." ¹⁵ "Their feet are swift to shed blood; ¹⁶ Destruction and misery are in their ways; ¹⁷ And the way of peace they have not known." ¹⁸ "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

This passage presents man in his natural state, completely without the ability or even desire to seek God. Paul goes on to show how the person described above becomes reconciled to God.

Romans 5:6-8

⁶ For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. ⁷ For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. ⁸ But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Old Ship of Zion

In the synergistic view, the old ship of Zion is sailing along with enough life preservers for all who are floundering in the ocean. God offers to throw a life preserver to each swimmer, but only if they are willing to grab it. They must, with their last ounce of strength, reach for the life preserver so that they may be pulled into the ship. God may not jump into the ocean, as that would violate the sovereignty of the swimmer. In the monergistic view, the ocean is full of rotting corpses, and God does in fact jump into the water, breathe life into the corpse, and give the individual not only the desire but also the strength to climb into the ship.

My brother, commenting on the previous illustration, wrote the following in a recent email:

When I think of what God has to do in regeneration the picture in mind is the one from the movie "Titanic" where the one rescue boat that came back to check for survivors found all the frozen, floating bodies, and no matter how hard he blew his whistle, none of the bodies came to life (only the one person who was still alive responded). Synergism assumes that dead corpses can be moved by appeal. If we shout loud enough or long enough or use the right degree of urgency the dead will come to life of their own free will. But we know that you can only nudge a dead body - if you push it hard enough, it will certainly move, but it cannot come to life and move by itself apart from a miracle of grace. (Eph. 2:1)

Synergism, in whatever form it takes, has man capable of participating with God in his salvation. Strange Baptist Fire (in a post titled Your Election Ballot) shows a tract from some years ago. The tract is in the form of a ballot, with God, Satan, and man each casting a vote on the issue of man's salvation. They write:

Thus salvation is ultimately decided by a work of our own. Also note that God's vote carries no more weight than does Satan's nor man's. This approach, popular among Protestants of many denominations, including ours, is a misrepresentation of God's revealed truth in His word. It elevates fallen, darkened, stone-hearted man, and essentially takes God off of His throne, giving Him no greater sovereignty than the rest of us. We may as well then say with atheist William Henley, "I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul."

The Monergistic view of salvation most accurately reflects the Scripture. Sadly, as the previous quote shows, most evangelism today presupposes the synergistic view.

My Lord I Did Not Choose You
A. Sullivan / Josiah Conder © Public Domain

My Lord I did not choose You
For that could never be
My heart would still refuse You
Had You not chosen me

You took the sin that stained me
You cleansed me made me new
Of old You have ordained me
That I should live in You

Unless Your grace had called me
And taught my opening mind
The world would have enthralled me
To heavenly glories blind

My heart knows none above You
For Your rich grace I thirst
I know that if I love You
You must have loved me first

¹ Warfield, B.B. The Plan of Salvation. (General Books LLC, 2009).
² John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust).
³ Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers), 1996. Vol. 3 of 8.
⁴ Sword of the Lord. 27 September 2010.

Scripture taken from the New King James Version.
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer:
Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.

Comment Moderation

On one hand, I have little respect for those who comment anonymously. If I am unwilling to affix my name to something I have written, then it probably should not be written!

On the other hand, I welcome comments from anyone who is willing to take the time to read my posts and interact with my writing. I don't like having my comments removed by the owners of other blogs, and am unwilling to restrict commenting solely to those who agree with the positions I hold.

So how do I reconcile a dislike for anonymous commenting with a desire to let commenters challenge my writing?

Blogger provides only 4 options with regard to comments:

Anyone - includes Anonymous Users

Registered Users - includes OpenID

Users with Google Accounts

Only members of this blog

Since my blog began I have used the first option, as it is the least restrictive to commenters. Beginning today, I am going to try something new. I will continue to allow anyone to comment, but will begin to moderate comments. Anonymous comments will, most often, be deleted. Exceptions will be based solely on the substance of the comment, and that solely at my discretion.

Facebook Theological Discussion

A missionary friend of mine recently posted 2 status updates on Facebook (FB). Both my brother and I commented on the updates, but my friend deleted all but 1 of my comments. In this article, I am posting my friends original status updates, followed by my comments and the comments of 2 other posters. I have removed any references that would identify any of the individuals.

Here are the 2 original posts by my friend:

Post 1 Missionary:

...is never amazed at the mental gymnastics that hyper-cavinists will use to prove the 'doctrine' of limited atonement. BTW, did you ever notice that those spewing the doctrine of hyper-calvinism consider themselves to be part of the elect along with their kids and grandkids....Let's go out and share the gospel!!!

Post 2 Missionary:

...is pretty sure that 'whosoever' means 'whosover' no matter whoever you are...the only condition is believe!!

Here is my 1st comment in which I quoted from John 3:

2 groups of people contrasted

¹⁶ For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. ¹⁷ For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. ¹⁸ He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

This passage shows a contrast between 2 groups of people; those who believe and those who do not. The believing ones have everlasting life because God's wrath on them has been satisfied by Christ. The non-believing ones are condemned because God's wrath on them has not been satisfied by Christ. If their debt had been paid there would no longer be a debt for them to pay. John Owen rightly stated: "…is it probable that God calls any to a second payment, and requires satisfaction of them for whom, by his own acknowledgement, Christ hath made that which is full and sufficient.

All believers affirm a limited atonement. The disagreement concerns the WHOM that is responsible for the limit, whether it is God or man. I, a monergist, affirm that God limits the atonement to those who believe and for those, and only for those, it is a full and complete atonement. The synergist affirms that man limits the atonement by his acceptance or rejection of Christ. That view posits an atonement that Christ did not fully and completely accomplish, as it necessitates a contribution on the part of man.

p.s. The "doctrine" of a limited atonement is not what distinguishes "hypers" from "regular" Calvinists.

Here is my 2nd comment in which I quoted from John 6:

John 3 does not speak to the issue of who has the capability to believe and Romans 3 establishes that no one does. John 6 shows that those who believe do so solely because belief has been granted by the Father.

⁶⁴ But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. ⁶⁵ And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."

Here is the response to my 1st comment by a 3rd party:

The statement that "All believers affirm a limited atonement" is not accurate. At the very least, it makes obedience to the great commission paralyzingly confusing.

Here is my response to the above comment, and is the only comment of mine that was not deleted from the FB thread.

In what way?

The 3rd party did not respond to my question.

Here is the response to my 1st comment by my friend's wife:

If I really beieved in limited atonement and that God elected some to Heaven (and in doing so some to Hell) I would pack my bags today and head home to my children and grandchildren. I could be better served investing my time in them if all who are the elect [natives of the country they serve] will be saved in the end anyway.

I responded to her comment but did not save the text of my reply. The following is a synopsis of what I wrote:

God uses MEANS to save His elect, and the proclamation of the Gospel is that means. Isaiah 52:7 shows that the feet of those who bring the good news of the Gospel are beautiful.

p.s. the McKillop boys are 5 point Calvinists, but we are not, nor do we know, any 'hypers.'

I exchanged emails about the FB post with my pastor, Tom Fillinger, who blogs at The Text Says. With his permission, I here include a portion of his email to me:

In the first place, there is no "whosoever" in the text to begin with.

The text says:

outos gar egapesen o theos ton kosmon oste ton uion ton monogene edoken ina pas o pisteuon eis auton me apoletai all eche zoen aionion

The highlighted phrase is a present active participle correctly translated "the believing ones". The ina clause preceding this participle expresses PURPOSE. God did what He did for the express purpose that "the believing ones" would not perish but have eternal life. That is about as particular as it gets!!

Update - Friday, June 18, 2010 10:00AM

I posted a link to this article in 1 of the original FB posts. My friend responded to that post, and I, in return, responded to his post. Here are those 2 posts:

Missionary's post:

Don't miss the point! We need more obedience to the great commission, not more discussion...

My post:

The difference between the limited and the unlimited atonement guys is not primarily obedience. It is the different approach each group takes to evangelism.

Synergists posit that God and man both contribute to salvation, God doing everything He can, but leaving it all up to man to make a decision. The focus then of synergistic evangelism is on the response, and the success or failure of Gospel proclamation is determined by decisions.

Monergists posit that God alone does all in saving sinners. He is author, finisher, and everything between. The focus of monergistic evangelism is on the presentation, as Paul in 1 Cor. 1 shows that Gospel proclamation is the MEANS by which the Holy Spirit saves those who believe. Monergists, for the most part, are opposed to altar calls, not because they don't want sinners to come to faith, but because the Holy Spirit does not need our help in accomplishing his work.

It is ironic that many synergistic Gospel presentations end with a monergistic prayer! The preaching declares that it is up to man to respond, but the prayer asks God to work in people's hearts. I also don't understand why a synergist would pray for someone's salvation, since in that view God has done all He can do, and has left the final decision up to man.

Theology DOES matter!

Here are some resources that speak to the issues raised in this article:

Hyper-Calvinism

What is Hyper-Calvinism?

What is hyper-Calvinism and is it Biblical?

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, & Arminianism

Danger of Hyper-Calvinism

The above article references a John R. Rice book on Hyper-Calvinism. The link provided is obsolete. This appears to be the book he references:

Hyper-Calvinism: A False Doctrine

Limited Atonement

Monergism Search - a number of articles linked here

John 3:16 (Limited Atonement)

The Calvinism of Charles Haddon Spurgeon: Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption

Scripture taken from the New King James Version.
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer:
Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.

Regeneration Precedes Faith

Download a free PDF of this article

Introduction

In 1986, Tyndale House Publishers released R.C. Sproul's Chosen By God. In 1999, Bethany House Publishers released Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free, which, while not stating such, appears to be a refutation of Sproul's work. In 2000, Calvary Press Publishing released The Potter's Freedom, James White's response to Geisler's work. Sproul wrote the foreword for The Potter's Freedom. In 2001, Geisler released a second edition of Chosen But Free, and responded to White in an addendum (Appendix 13). White responded to Geisler through an article on his website, titled A Most Disappointing Response.

Chosen By God

In Chosen by God, Sproul writes:

The cure for spiritual death is the creation of spiritual life in our souls by God the Holy Spirit. (112)

He then quotes Ephesians 2:1-10 and explains:

What is here called quickening or being made alive is what is elsewhere called rebirth or regeneration. The term regeneration, as the word suggests, indicates a "generating again." To generate means to cause to happen or to begin. We think of the first book of the Bible, the book of beginnings, which is called Genesis. The prefix re means simply "again." Therefore the word regeneration means to begin something again. It is the new beginning of life that we are concerned with here, the beginning of spiritual life. (113)

He gives further explanation by showing:

It is the beginning of new life but it is not the total sum of the new life. It is the crucial point of transition from spiritual death to spiritual life. (117)

When God regenerates a human soul, when he makes us spiritually alive, we make choices. We believe. We have faith. We cling to Christ. God does not believe for us. (118)

In regeneration, God changes our hearts. He gives us a new disposition, a new inclination. He plants a desire for Christ in our hearts. We can never trust Christ for our salvation unless we first desire him. That is why we said earlier that regeneration precedes faith. (118)

The process of salvation as expressed by Sproul is:

Regeneration - Faith - Salvation

Chosen But Free

Geisler, in Why Blame Me?, Chapter 2 of Chosen But Free, writes:

Indeed, one response to the problem of divine sovereignty and human responsibility is that of extreme Calvinism. (19)

The footnote associated with the above sentence reads:

We use the term "extreme" rather than "hyper" since hyper-Calvinism is used by some to designate a more radical view known as "superlapsarianism," which entails double predestination…

Nonetheless, we call them "extreme" Calvinists because they are more extreme than John Calvin himself (see appendix 2) and to distinguish them from moderate Calvinists (see chapter 7)

Not only does Geisler make the mistake of referring to supra-lapsarianism as super-lapsarianism, he also creates two brand new categories of Calvinists: the extreme and the moderate.

In his foreword to The Potter's Freedom, Sproul responds:

Apart from mislabeling his own views, Geisler makes a spirited defense of historic Arminianism, and in the process seeks to paint historic Calvinism as not only "extreme," but false. (15)

Geisler's asks the question, Is Regeneration Prior to Faith?, in Appendix 10 of his work:

A fundamental pillar in the extreme Calvinists' view is the belief that regeneration is logically prior to faith. That is, we are saved in order to believe; we do not believe in order to be saved. (235)

The Appendix is broken into two sections:

1. Verses offered by extreme Calvinists in support of their view
2. Verses that demonstrate that faith is prior to salvation

Notice here that Geisler is using the terms regeneration and salvation synonymously. As such, his process of salvation can be expressed thusly:

Faith - Salvation/Regeneration

The confusion over the issue of regeneration preceding faith arises from the different understanding and usage of the term regeneration. Geisler and other non-Calvinists use their own definition of the term to critique Calvinism, expressing their understanding of the Calvinist process of salvation thusly:

Salvation - Faith

My purpose in writing this article is to show that regeneration, as it is understood by Calvinists, must precede faith. To that end, we will first look at the Canons of Dordt, specifically the section presenting man's spiritual depravity. Following that, we will see from the writing and preaching of selected Calvinists that they affirm the idea of regeneration preceding faith. This article will conclude with a look at the story of the raising of Lazarus from John 11. In my opinion, it is one of the best illustrations of regeneration preceding faith.

The Canons of Dordt

The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine are subtitled, Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs.

Article 3: Total Inability
Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

Article 12: Regeneration a Supernatural Work
And this is the regeneration, the new creation, the raising from the dead, and the making alive so clearly proclaimed in the Scriptures, which God works in us without our help. But this certainly does not happen only by outward teaching, by moral persuasion, or by such a way of working that, after God has done his work, it remains in man's power whether or not to be reborn or converted. Rather, it is an entirely supernatural work, one that is at the same time most powerful and most pleasing, a marvelous, hidden, and inexpressible work, which is not lesser than or inferior in power to that of creation or of raising the dead, as Scripture (inspired by the author of this work) teaches. As a result, all those in whose hearts God works in this marvelous way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectively reborn and do actually believe. And then the will, now renewed, is not only activated and motivated by God but in being activated by God is also itself active. For this reason, man himself, by that grace which he has received, is also rightly said to believe and to repent.

Article 16: Regeneration's Effect
However, just as by the fall man did not cease to be man, endowed with intellect and will, and just as sin, which has spread through the whole human race, did not abolish the nature of the human race but distorted and spiritually killed it, so also this divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and - in a manner at once pleasing and powerful - bends it back. As a result, a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit now begins to prevail where before the rebellion and resistance of the flesh were completely dominant. It is in this that the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists. Thus, if the marvelous Maker of every good thing were not dealing with us, man would have no hope of getting up from his fall by his free choice, by which he plunged himself into ruin when still standing upright.

Rejection of the errors - IV
Who teach that unregenerate man is not strictly or totally dead in his sins or deprived of all capacity for spiritual good but is able to hunger and thirst for righteousness or life and to offer the sacrifice of a broken and contrite spirit which is pleasing to God.

For these views are opposed to the plain testimonies of Scripture: You were dead in your transgressions and sins (Eph. 2:1, 5); The imagination of the thoughts of man's heart is only evil all the time (Gen. 6:5; 8:21). Besides, to hunger and thirst for deliverance from misery and for life, and to offer God the sacrifice of a broken spirit is characteristic only of the regenerate and of those called blessed (Ps. 51:17; Matt. 5:6).

The Canons here, in that which they affirm and reject, show that the first work of salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit, without which no one would or could be saved. Ezekiel 36:26 describes regeneration as the act of God giving "a new heart, and a new spirit," while at the same time removing "the heart of stone from your flesh."

Calvinists affirmation of regeneration preceding faith

Abraham Kuyper shows that "the word 'regeneration' is used in [both] a limited sense, and in a more extended sense." He writes:

It is used in the limited sense when it denotes exclusively God's act of quickening, which is the first divine act whereby God translates us from death into life, from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of His dear Son. In this sense regeneration is the starting point.

A.A. Hodge explains the narrowing of the word's usage to refer to the opening stage of salvation:

In the development of Protestant theology the term has been still further narrowed: first, to express the opening stage of this subjective work as distinguished from its continuance in sanctification; and then, since the seventeenth century, to express the initial divine act in this opening stage itself, as distinguished from the broader term conversion, which includes, along with the act of God, revivifying man, also the act of man in turning to God.

In Regeneration, Chapter 29 of Hodge's Outlines of Theology, he uses a question and answer format:

Question 11
What is the difference between regeneration and conversion?

Answer
The term conversion is often used in a wide sense as including both the change of nature and the exercise of that nature as changed. When distinguished from regeneration, however, conversion signifies the first exercise of the new disposition implanted in regeneration, i.e., in freely turning unto God.

Regeneration is God's act; conversion is ours. Regeneration is the implantation of a gracious principle; conversion is the exercise of that principle. Regeneration is never a matter of direct consciousness to the subject of it; conversion always is such to the agent of it. Regeneration is a single act, complete in itself; and never repeated; conversion, as the beginning of holy living, is the commencement of a series, constant, endless, and progressive.

John Bunyan, in what is reported to be his final sermon, shows from John 1:13 that regeneration is indeed the first necessity for salvation:

Suppose it be the gospel, he cannot see it before he be brought into a state of regeneration. Believing is the consequence of the new birth; 'not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God.'

…as soon as he has raised you out of the dark dungeon of sin, you cannot but cry to God, What must I do to be saved? As soon as ever God had touched the jailer, he cries out, 'Men and brethren, what must I do to be saved?'

James P. Boyce was the first president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY). In Regeneration and Conversion, Chapter 32 of his Abstract of Systematic Theology, he writes:

At the outset of a discussion of these two subjects we are met by the question, whether they are not one and the same thing. They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably accompanies regeneration. It is not strange, therefore, that they are often confounded. Yet, after all, the Scriptures also teach that regeneration is the work of God, changing the heart of man by his sovereign will, while conversion is the act of man turning towards God with the new inclination thus given to his heart. (373)

The relation of regeneration to conversion will, therefore, appear to be one of invariable antecedence. (380)

C.H. Spurgeon preached a sermon in 1871 titled Faith and Regeneration. With 1 John 5:1 as his text, he stated it in this manner:

There never was a grain of such faith as this in the world, except in a regenerate soul, and there never will be while the world standeth. It is so according to the text, and if we had no other testimony this one passage would be quite enough to prove it. "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God."

To believe in Jesus is a better indicator of regeneration than anything else, and in no case did it ever mislead. Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man.

John Piper, in a sermon titled Regeneration, Faith, Love: In That Order, used the same passage as Spurgeon, and showed that "…regeneration is the cause of faith":

That's plain in 1 John 5:1: "Everyone who believes [that is, has faith] that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God." Having been born of God results in our believing. Our believing is the immediate evidence of God's begetting.

What is common to all of the above Calvinists is their affirmation that regeneration is a necessary prerequisite to faith and thus salvation.

The Raising of Lazarus

John 11:38-44
³⁸Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. ³⁹Jesus said, "Take away the stone." Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, "Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days." ⁴⁰Jesus said to her, "Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?" ⁴¹So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. ⁴²I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me." ⁴³When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out." ⁴⁴The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go."

There are three distinct phases in the raising of Lazarus. I believe that they show, in a physical manner, that which happens spiritually in salvation. The three correspond to Calvinism's process of salvation: Regeneration - Faith - Salvation. We will look at: Lazarus in the grave, Lazarus leaving the grave, and Lazarus unbound.

Lazarus in the grave
It has always fascinated me to read that Jesus, after finding out that Lazarus was sick, did not immediately rush to him, but stayed where he was. He arrives in Bethany four days after the death and burial, enough time for the body to be in a state of decay, which Martha notes in verse 39. Jesus requests the stone be removed and commands Lazarus to "come forth." The Scripture does not give any detail about what happens inside the tomb in the interval between the command of Jesus to Lazarus and Lazarus' obedience to that command.

But Lazarus is dead, and therefore has no inherent ability to revive himself. In order for him to come to life, a force external to him, and which is able to overcome death, must work on his behalf. That force is clearly the life-giving command of God, in the person of Jesus. The command causes a halt to the physical decay, even reversing it, so that moments later when he is unbound, there is no evidence of the sickness that caused his death. Jesus does not do partial resurrections! Lazarus is restored to full health while still inside the tomb. But, it is not enough for him to stay in his tomb; the miracle is not yet complete.

The spiritual application is unmistakable. The unregenerate are spiritually dead, and have no ability to effect their spiritual resurrection. The Holy Spirit effects the resurrection, the restored birth, the regeneration. He does that by means of the word of God proclaimed. Those who are given new life by the Holy Spirit do not choose to stay in their spiritual graves. They freely and willingly leave their tombs. We see then that regeneration, the coming to life of the spiritually dead, must be a first cause. It is a cause that is external to the individual, accomplished without the aid of the individual.

White, in The Potter's Freedom, explains:

On the level of spiritual capacity the unregenerate man is just like Lazarus: dead, bound, incapable of "self-resurrection." It would be patently absurd to demand that Jesus first ask Lazarus for "permission" to raise him to spiritual life. Corpses are not known for engaging in a great deal of conversation. No, before Lazarus can respond to Christ's command to come forth, something must happen. Corpses do not obey commands, corpses do not move. Jesus changed Lazarus' condition first: Lazarus' heart was made new; his mind revitalized. Blood began once again to course through his veins. What was once dead is now alive, and can now hear the voice of his beloved Lord. "Come forth!" (284)

Lazarus leaving the grave
Now that Lazarus has been restored to life, he does the only logical thing - he obeys the command to leave the tomb! Dead men who are brought to life have no desire to remain in their tombs. It is significant to note that no one goes into the tomb to carry Lazarus out. He is not dragged against his will from his tomb. He comes out of the tomb under his own power, but would not have had that power had he not been made alive by the command of Jesus. He exercises faith! It is unthinkable to imagine that he could have struggled with the decision to stay in the tomb or come out. The command was irresistible on two counts: first, it was Jesus who issued the command, and death was powerless against his command; and second, an alive Lazarus would never choose the grave over being restored to his loved ones. But the miracle is not yet complete, for Lazarus is still wearing his grave clothes.

Here again, the spiritual application is obvious. Those who have been brought to life always respond by exercising faith. Also, they do it most willingly and freely. Regeneration is the cause, while faith is the effect.

Lazarus unbound
In addition to the command to Lazarus, Jesus also issues a command to those present, the community of the living. They are given instructions to "unbind" him. Once that is accomplished he can begin his life again. The miracle of resurrection is complete, but the process of living his resurrected life is just beginning.

The spiritual application is clear. My pastor constantly references the need for Christian community, and it is that community that assists the resurrected one. The miracle of salvation does not end with our exit from our spiritual grave; it is just beginning. We now live and grow within the community of the resurrected, where each contributes to the other.

Conclusion

Regeneration precedes faith and is the cause of faith. Those regenerated always and without fail exercise faith, and exercised faith is salvation. Let each of us who has been regenerated give praise to God for the mercy and grace he has shown in raising us to spiritual life.

All scripture quotations are English Standard Version
unless otherwise noted.

Disclaimer:
Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.

Sign, Sign, Everywhere A Sign

When we travel to my parents' home in southeastern Missouri, we pass this sign in a front yard:


Recently, I was traveling in central Florida and came across this billboard:


It reads, "Lonely? Confused? Angry? Depressed? Jesus is Still the Answer."

When I was driving to church recently, I spotted a vanity plate with the words, "Try Him."

I suppose the purpose for these signs is evangelistic. They offer Jesus as the solver of emotional, financial, health-related and other needs. But that is not how the Scriptures present Jesus. His suffering and death on the cross were not to keep us from being lonely, not to eliminate our confusion, not to keep us from getting angry, and surely not to keep us from being depressed. These signs proclaim a false Gospel, that of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, a term coined by Christian Smith. He, along with Melinda Lundquist Denton, researched the spiritual lives of U.S. teenagers for a book they co-authored. They listed five creeds of the religion:

1. A god exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about one-self.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when he is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

Damon Linker, in an article for the New Republic, writes:

Theologically speaking, this watered-down, anemic, insipid form of Judeo-Christianity is pretty repulsive. But politically speaking, it's perfect: thoroughly anodyne, inoffensive, tolerant. And that makes it perfectly suited to serve as the civil religion of the highly differentiated twenty-first century United States.

Al Mohler, in an article for the Christian Post, states:

Smith and his colleagues recognize that the deity behind Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is very much like the deistic God of the 18th-century philosophers. This is not the God who thunders from the mountain, nor a God who will serve as judge. This undemanding deity is more interested in solving our problems and in making people happy.

This radical transformation of Christian theology and Christian belief replaces the sovereignty of God with the sovereignty of the self. In this therapeutic age, human problems are reduced to pathologies in need of a treatment plan. Sin is simply excluded from the picture, and doctrines as central as the wrath and justice of God are discarded as out of step with the times and unhelpful to the project of self-actualization.

In an article for his blog, Mohler notes:

…the God in whom many of these teenagers believe bears virtually no resemblance to the God of the Bible.

Gene Edward Veith, in an article for World Magazine, writes:

It is not just teenagers who are moralistic therapeutic deists. This describes the beliefs of many adults too, and even what is taught in many supposedly evangelical churches.

Lane Chaplin concludes a blog post with:

…we've effectively proven that the 5 points of Moralistic, Therapeutic, Deism, are not only not taught in Scripture, they are the antithesis of Scripture.

Clearly this new religion is a man-centered religion, as opposed to the God-centered religion of the Scriptures. The message of the Bible is that Jesus suffered the eternal wrath of God for those sinners upon whom God had chosen to lavish his grace.

Ephesians 1:3-10
³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, ⁴ even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love ⁵ he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, ⁶ to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. ⁷ In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, ⁸ which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight ⁹ making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ ¹⁰ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Jesus' purpose in suffering the separation from God that he endured on the cross was not to solve people's emotional problems. The Scripture makes no promise that believers will be emotionally healthy people. A brief look at four individuals will not only show their emotional struggle, but will also show the blessings they received as a result of that struggle.

King David is a perfect example of a man with serious emotional issues. You don't have to read very far in the Psalms to see that he was a man who frequently found himself in deep emotional distress.

In Psalm 13 he writes:

¹ How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me? ² How long must I take counsel in my soul and have sorrow in my heart all the day? How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?

The first 21 verses of Psalm 22 are an anguished cry to God where David begs not to be forsaken by Him. In verse 14 we hear the cry of a depressed and lonely individual:

I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast…

Job is a man who is spoken of as: "…blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil" (Job 1:1). Not only did Job lose all of his material wealth, but he also lost all of his children, when the house they were in collapsed upon them. I cannot begin to imagine his heartache over his loss!

John Bunyan, the author of Pilgrim's Progress, was imprisoned for 12 years for the crime of preaching. In the account of his life, recorded in Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, he writes of his emotional turmoil:

327. But notwithstanding these helps, I found myself a man and compassed with infirmities; the parting with my wife and poor children, hath often been to me in this place, as the pulling the flesh from the bones, and that not only because I am somewhat too fond of these great mercies, but also because I should have often brought to my mind the many hardships, miseries, and wants that my poor family was like to meet with, should I be taken from them, especially my poor blind child, who lay nearer my heart than all besides: Oh! the thoughts of the hardship I thought my poor blind one might go under, would break my heart to pieces.

328. Poor child! thought I, what sorrow art thou like to have for thy portion in this world! Thou must be beaten, must beg, suffer hunger, cold, nakedness, and a thousand calamities, though I cannot now endure the wind should blow upon thee. But yet recalling myself, thought I, I must venture you all with God, though it goeth to the quick to leave you: Oh! I saw in this condition I was as a man who was pulling down his house upon the head of his wife and children; yet, thought I, I must do it, I must do it: and now I thought on those two milch kine that were to carry the ark of God into another country, and to leave their calves behind them.
1 Samuel 6:10-12.

Michael Patton recently posted an article on his blog titled, "Uncle, Lord!" He begins by writing: "God is really starting to get on my nerves." The entire post is about loneliness, confusion, anger, and depression.

As we noted earlier, Jesus came to satisfy the wrath of God for sinners. Man comes to Jesus in repentance and faith, seeking a savior. Evangelistic outreach that concentrates on that as its message, offers hope for sinners. Though there is no guarantee in Scripture that one's emotional struggles will be eliminated, the process of maturing in faith should lessen the impact of those struggles for a believer. In the case of the men spoken of above, the testimony each one gives is how much closer they cling to the Lord as a result of their struggle.

In the final 10 verses of Psalm 22, David rejoices that God does not despise the suffering of those who love Him. In Job 42:1-6, we observe that when Job saw God for who He was, Job saw himself for whom he was, and came to repentance. Bunyan, in the closing section of his account, speaks of the comfort that came as a direct result of his struggle:

339. Now was my heart full of comfort; for I hoped it was sincere: I would not have been without this trial for much; I am comforted every time I think of it, and I hope I shall bless God for ever, for the teaching I have had by it. Many more of the dealings towards me I might relate, But these out of the spoils won in battle I have dedicated to maintain the house of God. 1 Chronicles 26:27.

Patton ends his article with thankfulness for his struggle:

But, know this: I am broken before the Lord. Cracked, bruised, and sometimes crying inside, I have the joy of insufficiency. I have the confidence of inadequacy. I have the hope of lacking in everything.

I suppose there is no better place to be. Broken before the Lord. Like a child in the womb of a mother, I am in his womb. No viability on my own. I have no reason to rise up before him and salute myself. He sees to that.

How much worse would it be if I had the ease that I waste my time and energy longing for? How much worse it would be were I to wave my white flag and life cease to fire. Would I stay at his side? Probably not.

How many believers have been encouraged in their personal struggle by reading the Psalms, by reading Job, by reading Pilgrim's Progress, and now by reading Patton's article? Jesus doesn't take our problems away if we "try" him. No, He provides grace and mercy for us to go through the problems, and thus be an encouragement to those who will follow us. These are the results of coming to Christ in repentance and faith, and this is a message worth sharing.

All scripture quotations are English Standard Version
unless otherwise noted.

Disclaimer:
Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.

Free Piano Music by Dave Mincy

An Examination of Tulip: The Five Points of Calvinism

While unpacking some boxes of books recently I came across a small, 23-page booklet titled, An Examination of Tulip: The "Five Points" of Calvinism!, authored by Robert L. Sumner. The booklet was published by Biblical Evangelism Press, Brownsburg, Indiana, with a copyright date on the inside cover of 1972. The booklet is available through Sumner's website.

I do not recall where I acquired the booklet, nor do I recall having read it previously. As I read through it, I found much to disagree with; my purpose in this article is to critique the arguments Sumner puts forward in his examination of Calvinism.

The booklet is divided into four sections with a short introduction and conclusion. The sections are titled:

1. What are the "Five Points" of Calvinism? (pages 4-11)
2. How Does This Position Effect Evangelism? (pages 11-12)
3. What Is Wrong With the "Five-Point" Position? (pages 12-19)
4. The "Five Points" Effect on Other Doctrines (pages 19-22)

He begins the second paragraph of his introduction by writing:

Those who hold to five-point Calvinism teach that God, in a sense, really doesn't want all men to be saved or to come unto the knowledge of his truth. (3)

and ends the paragraph with the following:

…what they teach amounts to His actually wanting the majority of souls to perish in Hell eternally. (3)

Sumner's objection here is a fairly common objection to Calvinism. What is fascinating to me is that I have never heard or read any Calvinist who would agree with Sumner's representation of Calvinism. Charles Spurgeon, in his Defense of Calvinism, answers the first statement:

Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty."

...If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world…

...Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed…

...That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!

In the same article, Spurgeon spoke to the issue of the number of the elect:

Think of the numbers upon whom God has bestowed His grace already. Think of the countless hosts in Heaven: if thou wert introduced there to-day, thou wouldst find it as easy to tell the stars, or the sands of the sea, as to count the multitudes that are before the throne even now. They have come from the East, and from the West, from the North, and from the South, and they are sitting down with Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob in the Kingdom of God; and beside those in Heaven, think of the saved ones on earth. Blessed be God, His elect on earth are to be counted by millions, I believe, and the days are coming, brighter days than these, when there shall be multitudes upon multitudes brought to know the Saviour, and to rejoice in Him. The Father's love is not for a few only, but for an exceeding great company. "A great multitude, which no man could number," will be found in Heaven. A man can reckon up to very high figures; set to work your Newtons, your mightiest calculators, and they can count great numbers, but God and God alone can tell the multitude of His redeemed. I believe there will be more in Heaven than in hell. If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer, because Christ, in everything, is to "have the pre-eminence," and I cannot conceive how He could have the pre-eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in Paradise. Moreover, I have never read that there is to be in hell a great multitude, which no man could number.

Loraine Boettner, in his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (also available here), discusses the same objection:

When the doctrine of Election is mentioned many people immediately assume that this means that the great majority of mankind will be lost. But why should any one draw that conclusion? God is free in election to choose as many as He pleases, and we believe that He who is infinitely merciful and benevolent and holy will elect the great majority to life. There is no good reason why He should be limited to only a few. We are told that Christ is to have the preeminence in all things, and we do not believe that the Devil will be permitted to emerge victor even in numbers. (130)

And further:

There is, however, a very common practice among Arminian writers to represent Calvinists as tending to consign to everlasting misery a large portion of the human race whom they would admit to the enjoyment of heaven. It is a mere caricature of Calvinism to represent it as based on the principle that the saved will be a mere handful, or only a few brands plucked from the burning. (131)

...In answer to those who are inclined to say, "According to this doctrine God alone can save the soul; there will be few saved," we can reply that they might as well reason, "Since God alone can create stars, there can be but few stars." The objection is not well taken. The doctrine of Election taken in itself tells us nothing about what the ultimate ratio shall be. The only limit set is that not all will be saved. (131)

In the opening paragraph of Section 1 Sumner, in an attempt to be "objective, not objectionable, (4)" states:

Opponents usually describe it as hyper-Calvinism, a term which greatly agitates the advocates of five-pointism because "hyper" means "to go beyond the ordinary or norm." While we feel "hyper-Calvinism" is an honest and fair appraisal, since it goes beyond the position of Calvin himself, we will refrain from using the term here. (4)

The Canons of Dordt define Calvinism, not John Calvin's specific writings. Furthermore even though the term "hyper" may be defined in the manner Sumner does, when that term is prefixed to Calvinism it actually has a distinct meaning and Calvinists are as much opposed to hyper-Calvinism as they are opposed to Arminianism.

In a Reformed Perspectives Magazine article titled, What is Hyper-Calvinism?, Jim Ellis writes:

Hyper-Calvinism is a term of derision that today is often used to negatively label anyone with a strong theological view of God's sovereignty in the affairs of men. A legitimate understanding of hyper-Calvinism, in its technical sense, appears to be lost today. It seems as if anyone to the right of one's own theological position is fair game to be labeled a hyper-Calvinist.

...They [the hyper-Calvinists], like the Arminians, mistakenly assume that if it is the duty (responsibility) of fallen man to believe and God indeed calls him to believe, then he must have the natural ability to do so. The Arminian conclusion is that man has a free will and Christ has made an atonement for all alike. The hyper-Calvinist, based on the same assumption, concludes that it is not the duty of fallen man and that God in the gospel does not indiscriminately offer Christ to all men alike; that is in reference to the "outward call" of the Gospel. Thus, in trying to protect the Calvinist doctrines of total depravity and particular redemption (a noble endeavor), the hyper-Calvinist has thrown out the baby with the bath water; namely, the universal call to faith to all who hear the gospel, reprobate and elect alike.

Ellis ends his article by stating that:

...I hope it is clear that hyper-Calvinism is not to be considered a legitimate form of Calvinism, for it is not. By the same token, however, it should also be clear that honest theological discussion should refrain from labeling legitimate variations within orthodox Calvinism as "Hyper-Calvinism."

Phil Johnson, in his Primer on Hyper-Calvinism, defines it as:

…a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. To call it "hyper-Calvinism" is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the major Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty.

Due to the fact that Sumner does not distinguish between Historic Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism, some of his arguments against Calvinism are actually arguments against hyper-Calvinism.

What are the "Five Points" of Calvinism?

Total Depravity

To the fact of man's total and complete depravity, as stated in Sacred Scripture, we heartily concur. Man is completely corrupt from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet. (4)

…we readily acknowledge also that man's depravity is such that he cannot and does not initiate any move towards God and redemption on his own. (4)

His statements so far are in complete accord with Calvinism. It is in the next paragraph that Sumner sides with the Arminians, though I am fairly confident he would reject the label.

The Word of God teaches that while man is totally depraved and totally unable to help himself, our Lord draws every man sufficiently and enlightens every man as much as necessary for that individual to make a decision of his own free will. (4)

…It is certainly true that no sinner can come to Christ unless drawn by the Spirit of God; but the blessed Holy Spirit draws every man (John 12:32), giving man enough light so that he is, as Romans 1:20 says, "without excuse." (5)

Jeff Paton, in his article on Prevenient Grace, shows that:

The Spirit is given to all men as the fruit of atonement, and grace works in all, works toward salvation. This holds good of all without exception, has held good since the beginning. It holds good of the unconverted before conversion, of those who never are converted, of the heathen who have never heard of Christ. Anticipating human desire and effort (hence called prevenient grace), it checks and counteracts sin, inspires and fosters good inclination, and allures to the search for more grace. This universal divine working is the source of moral good and beauty in the irreligious. When welcomed and followed up, it passes into saving grace.

J.C. Thibodaux, in an article titled Prevenient Grace and Libertarian Free Will, wrote:

This grace which can overcome the innate sinful desires of men and allow them to receive the gospel message and believe in Christ as Savior is sometimes called 'preventing grace' or 'prevenient grace;' literally, grace that precedes our faith and conversion. This is a prime tenet of Arminianism and has been so since its early days as a theological system.

In John 6:35-44 we read of the Father giving and drawing the elect to His Son:

³⁵ Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. ³⁶ But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. ³⁷ All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. ³⁸ For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. ³⁹ And 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. ⁴⁰ For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

⁴¹ So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." ⁴² They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" ⁴³ Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. ⁴⁴ No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

This passage shows that not every individual is drawn by the Spirit, because if they were, every individual would be saved. Verses 39, 40, and 44 all speak of raising up on the last day. Those who are given by the Father in verse 37 are those who look on the Son and believe in verse 40, and are those drawn by the Father in verse 44. No one can be drawn by the Father and yet not come to the Son, and all those drawn will come to the Son and will never be cast out.

Unconditional Election

The "U" in Tulip stands for "unconditional election." By this is meant that the decision which determines the individual's destiny is wholly and entirely God's decision, not in the slightest degree that of the sinner. (5)

…This kind of theology simply makes a taunting of the Savior's charge to the people of His day; "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (John 5:40). According to the philosophy of five-point Calvinism, it is not that these sinners would not, but rather that they could not. (6)

When one's theology begins with the idea that man is capable of responding to the call to repent, it logically must conclude that God in some way prohibits certain individuals from responding. The idea Sumner presents is that there are individuals who have a real desire to be saved and they cannot be saved solely because God has not elected them.

Since Calvinism affirms that unregenerate man will not respond to God's call to repent, God must do everything with regard to salvation. God's work begins with regeneration, wherein he removes the "heart of stone" and replaces it with a "heart of flesh" (Ezekiel 36:26). This work of God is accomplished by means of the preached Gospel.

Lazarus is a great example in the physical realm of what God does in the spiritual realm. Lazarus, being dead, had no awareness of his deadness, and his physical body was decaying in the grave. The command of Jesus to "come out" (John 11:43) included with it the regeneration of his physically dead body. Upon coming to life he leaves the darkness of the cave and joins the living.

Spiritually dead men have no capacity to regenerate themselves. As the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the Gospel, opens their hearts, unstops their deaf ears, and gives sight to their blind eyes, they repent and trust Christ. God is in no way obligated to save any and that, in His mercy and grace He saves many, does not make him unjust in not saving all.

…How deadening five-point Calvinism is to evangelism (6)

Here is where Sumner confuses Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism. Calvinists on the whole reject the kind of evangelism that affirms something along the lines of God-loves-you-and-has-a-wonderful-plan-for-your-life. Sadly, much of what passes for evangelism in our day results in many professors of salvation, but few who actually live a "new creation" life (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Limited Atonement

The "L" stands for "Limited Atonement." By this the five-point Calvinist means that Jesus Christ only died at Calvary for the elect - none of the billions of non-elect was included in the provision through the shedding of His blood. (7)

…They argue that if Christ died for all, then, unless His work was a failure, all must be forgiven and taken to Heaven. (7)

…In the dictionary of the "tulip" man, "world" does not mean world; "all" does not mean all; "whosoever" does not mean whosoever; and a brand new language must be understood which, in turn, makes the Bible a hopeless mass of confusion for the average reader - even though he be a child of God. (8)

This is an all-too-common charge against Calvinism, which is answered simply by showing that the immediate context will always determine who is included in the words world, all, and whosoever. James White, in his book The Potter's Freedom, commenting on John 12:32 - "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself (NASB)." - states that:

Reformed exegetes believe that "all men" refers to Jews and Gentiles, not to every individual person, and the context points this direction. (164)

The Second Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dordt deals specifically with the death of Christ and redemption of man.

Article 3
The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

Article 6
And whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

Article 8
For this was the sovereign counsel, and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever.

Roger Nicole, in his article The Case for Definite Atonement, shows that:

The doctrine is not concerned with the intrinsic value of the sacrifice of Christ. It is freely granted by all parties to the controversy, and specifically by the Reformed, that the death of our Lord, by virtue of His divine nature, is of infinite worth and therefore amply sufficient to redeem all mankind, all angels and the whole world, even a thousand worlds besides, if He had so intended. Rather the point at issue here concerns the chief purpose of the Father in sending the Son and the chief intention of Christ in laying down His life in sacrifice.

…The point at issue here is simply this, whether the Father is sending the Son and the Son in offering Himself did intend to, provide salvation for all men and every man, or whether they intended to secure the salvation of all those and those only who will in fact be redeemed.

In the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 8, Section 5, we read:

The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself which He, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God, has procured reconciliation, and has purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of Heaven for all those whom the Father has given to Him.

On Monday, May 4, 2009, Lee Shelton posted an article on his blog titled Let's Rap About Limited Atonement. It contains a YouTube video by Shai Linne. The lyrics are available through Shai's blog, Lyrical Theology.

Irresistible Grace

Proponents mean by this expression that God's grace, when presented by the Holy Spirit, is of such a nature that it is impossible for the sinner to resist or refuse. (9)

…the five-point Calvinist has invented two calls. One is described as a "general" call, which every sinner is able to hear, and the other is supposed to be an "effectual" call, which only the elect can hear. (9)

Once again, we look to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 10, Section 1, where we read that:

Those whom God has predestinated to life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time to effectually call by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death which they are in by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. He enlightens their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God. He takes away their heart of stone and gives to them a heart of flesh. He renews their wills, and by His almighty power, causes them to desire and pursue that which is good. He effectually draws them to Jesus Christ, yet in such a way that they come absolutely freely, being made willing by His grace.

With regards to Lazarus, it must be noted that Lazarus was incapable of resisting the command of Christ to "come out." After all, it was God in the person of Jesus Christ who issued the command. But if he could have resisted the command, would he have? The answer must be an empathic no! The command included regeneration, and he would not have freely chosen to remain in the tomb with the dead. The command was that which he could freely and eagerly obey.

Some who reject Calvinism mistakenly speak of individuals who desire to come to repentance but cannot, because God has not elected them. Then there are others whom God has elected, but have no desire for repentance and God must forcibly bring them to salvation. That is a preposterous notion! All men who come in repentance to Christ come absolutely freely and willingly, because the Holy Spirit has regenerated their hearts. Praise be to God for His mercy and grace in granting repentance and faith to multitudes from every tribe, tongue, and nation!

Perseverance of the Saints

By this the five-point Calvinist means that the saints are eternally secure in Christ and that once in grace, they are always in grace. This is truly in accord with scriptural teaching, although the terminology here is most unfortunate. As ones who magnify God's grace, surely five-point Calvinist should know that it is not the saints who persevere, but the blessed Holy Spirit. It is His "holding out," not that of the saints! (10)

Gise J. Van Baren, in Chapter 5 of The Five Points of Calvinism, discusses the Perseverance of the Saints.

When one speaks of the perseverance of the saints, there is one element that renders this perseverance of the saints absolutely sure, an element which may never be forgotten. One always perseveres because he is preserved by the living God - and there is no other possible reason for perseverance.

…This truth of the perseverance and preservation of the saints is exactly the truth which is an incentive to the child of God to walk in all godliness and holiness before God. That is a fact. No child of God would ever say that he can sin as he pleases - for he will be preserved anyway. One who says that he may sin as he will is no Christian and gives no evidence of Christ's work in his heart. The Spirit just does not work that way.

The article on Perseverance on the website A Puritan's Mind explains that:

Perseverance of the saints teaches that once God has renewed the heart of a sinner through the application of the redemption wrought by Christ upon the cross, he will continue to be saved and show forth the fruits of that salvation. The sinner perseveres because of Christ, but he continually shows himself as one who has been changed by Christ.

How Does This Position Effect Evangelism?

Here is where Sumner confuses Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism.

Why waste time, spend money and expend labor for something you cannot change? (11)

…Five-point Calvinism curtails missions, wrecks revivalism and destroys personal soul winning! And if those who hold the "tulip" position are right, why should we get excited about evangelism. (11)

…The whole idea of individual responsibility in soul winning is annihilated in the "tulip" view. (11)

In an article titled Calvinism and Evangelism, Bill Welzien writes:

Many people think that "Calvinist evangelist" is an oxymoron. What do you think? Can someone be seriously Calvinistic and at the same time seriously evangelistic?

…The Calvinist believes that every last one of those who were chosen in Christ before time will by the end of time be brought to saving faith and a vital relationship with God through the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ!

At this point, the non-Calvinist infers that the impetus and urgency to proclaim the gospel is gone, or diminished at best. After all, if God knows who is going to be saved, and if he will save his elect no matter what, why waste our time evangelizing?

But it is important to recognize that the God of the Bible ordains not only the end (salvation) but also the means to the end (the proclamation of the gospel).

…Does Calvinism take the wind out of the sails of evangelism? Properly understood and sincerely believed, it does exactly the opposite. Believing that God has a sovereign plan to bring all his elect to himself actually encourages evangelism.

What Is Wrong With the "Five-Point" Position?

In this section Sumner looks at five New Testament passages that are "used by the five-point Calvinist," and shows "how they have been taken out of context." Those passages are: Romans 9:10-13; John 15:15-16; 2 Timothy 2:9-10; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; and Romans 8:28-31.

With regard to the Romans 9 passage, Sumner states:

…the whole issue is a national issue, which pertains to governments, not a personal matter dealing with the salvation of individuals.

I wish Sumner had not stopped with verse 13!

Romans 9:14-18

¹⁴ What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! ¹⁵ For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." ¹⁶ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. ¹⁷ For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." ¹⁸ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in his commentary on Romans, has this to say about the passage:

…why is it interesting to note the way in which the Apostle presents this difficulty, this objection, that arises in the minds of certain people? It is because the very form in which he puts the objection helps us to decide whether our exposition up to date has been the wrong one, because it is quite clear that the objection with which the Apostle is going to deal is one which arises as a direct result of what he has been saying; and as I have indicated, if our exposition of what has gone before does not lead to this objection, then of necessity it has been wrong. (139)

…There are those who say that the Apostle, in this whole section from verse 6 onwards, is really dealing with the problem not of individual salvation but of nations - that his only interest is in the position of the Jews as a nation. (140)

…No, what the Apostle is saying from verse 6 to verse 13 is that God, of His own eternal and sovereign will in the carrying out of His own great and eternal purpose, chooses some to salvation and rejects others. That is the conclusion at which we have arrived. That is the only conclusion that leads to this particular difficulty, this charge that people feel in their hearts against God. (144)

James Montgomery Boice, in his commentary on the passage, shows that:

All human beings deserve hell, not heaven. We are not talking about whether all actually end up in hell or whether only some end up in hell and some in heaven. We are talking about what all deserve, and what they deserve is condemnation.

…Deserving is based upon what people have done. Mercy has nothing to do with what people have done but is something that finds its source in the will of God only. (1070)

The "Five Points" Effect on Other Doctrines

In truth and in fact, "tulip" views of election have a deadly detrimental effect on a number of other important Bible truths. (19)

In this section Sumner lists two: prayer and "the biblical teaching regarding training children. (19)" Regarding prayer Sumner declares:

If five-point Calvinism teaching be true, why pray for the lost? Since the matter would have already been arbitrarily settled in eternity past, prayer could not have any possible effect whatsoever on an individual's conversion. (19)

John Piper, in an article titled The Sovereignty of God and Prayer, shows that:

The implicit argument here is that if prayer is to be possible at all man must have the power of self-determination. That is, all man's decisions must ultimately belong to himself, not God. For otherwise he is determined by God and all his decisions are really fixed in God's eternal counsel.

…What I am saying is that it is not the doctrine of God's sovereignty which thwarts prayer for the conversion of sinners. On the contrary, it is the unbiblical notion of self-determination which would consistently put an end to all prayers for the lost. Prayer is a request that God do something. But the only thing God can do to save a lost sinner is to overcome his resistance to God.

…Only the person who rejects human self-determination can consistently pray for God to save the lost.

As to the training of children Sumner, quoting Proverbs 22:6 - Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. - states that:

…when parents train their children in obedience to Christ and His Word, God has an obligation to save them, help them live victoriously, and take them to heaven when they die. (20)

I would disagree with Sumner about God's obligation. If the children he is referring to do not come in personal repentance, trusting Christ for their salvation, God is in no way obligated to make an exception for them because of the training of their parents.

The remainder of the booklet has a few personal illustrations that I found distasteful. They seemed to be told in a manner that gave prominence to the writer, at the expense of the other party in the illustration.

Sumner closes the booklet by encouraging believers to "…get busy reaching sinners, (23)" which is commendable. We should all heed that encouragement, whether we affirm or reject Calvinism.

All scripture quotations are from the
English Standard Version, unless otherwise noted.

Disclaimer:
Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.