07.09.10
J.A. Matteson
“…God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel….”
2 Thessalonians 2:13
ὅτι εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἀπαρχὴν εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας,
God being sovereign in salvation is an inescapable reality. The grace of God which delivers salvation to sinners is far more than a theoretical universal atonement where the possibility is open that all can turn to the Father’s gift of His Son; rather, the grace Scripture speaks of is that which guarantees a particular atonement for all of those foreknown to the Father and that they will in fact be redeemed and the remainder are hardened. Writing to the church at Thessalonica Paul reminds them that their salvation is the result of grace, as individuals they contributed nothing to it. Here the apostle highlights the redemptive design and power of the triune God in bringing to faith all whom He purposed to save from eternity. Borrowing from the language of Moses in the opening verse of Genesis he writes, “God from the beginning chose you….” The text demonstrates that the Father selected from eternity specific individuals for salvation.
On this point of election both Arminian and Calvanist agree. But on what basis did the Father make His choice?, this is the question where the two part company. Had Paul intended to communicate that they were chosen based upon a future “decision” they would make (i.e., the Father “forseeing” their faith in Christ and, therefore, electing them on that basis) this would have been the perfect place to make that unmistakeably clear. But Paul does not do this. In fact he does just the opposite. The grammar he employs in the passage does not allow for an Arminian interpretation. According to Paul the basis of their election to salvation was not based upon the Father “gazing down the corridor of time to see how they would respond to the gospel”, as Arminian’s like to assert; rather, the basis of their election is the result of grace, God’s unmerited favor, “God from the beginning chose you.”
With grace being the basis for salvation the means by which the Father brought it about was “through (ἐν) sanctification by the Spirit (ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος).” Note carefully that Paul does not allow room for human boasting in the flesh in that he clearly articulates that prior to their faith response to the Gospel they were first “sanctified by the Spirit.” Also note that their faith was the result and not the cause of their sanctification (“and belief in the truth”; καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας). The word “and” (καὶ) denotes an object (faith) linked to and subsequent to its predicate (sanctification).
And to be “sanctified in the Spirit” is a reference to spiritual regeneration. Note also that the initiative of the salvation process begins with God and not the sinner. Had their election been on the basis of the Father foreseeing a faith they conjured up within themselves Paul would have likely said something to the effect, “God from the beginning chose you for salvation in response to—or on account of— foreseeing your faith in Christ, and therefore sanctified you by the Spirit….” That assertion is a serious departure from the text. Beloved, the sense of what the apostle is saying is this: in the fullness of time the effectual call of the Spirit came to each of those chosen “in the beginning” through the agency of the Gospel, regenerating the dead heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh, instilling a new nature within inclined toward the things of Spirit and of Christ. Note closely the profound implication of Paul in this passage: regeneration precedes faith which is a gift of grace from God. And as we might expect Paul is consistent in this regard in his many other statements, such as, “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor. 2:14).
The Armenian contradicts Paul at this point by insisting that that natural man (the unregenerate man) does in fact accept the things of the Spirit of God because he “makes a decision” for Christ and as a result is born again. But that is the exact opposite of Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ who said to Nicodemus, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:3). So juxtaposed to the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ the Arminian has the natural man deeming desirable that, which is according to Paul, is viewed as “foolishness”, spiritually seeing, desiring and while unregenerate “choosing” the kingdom of God and Christ while spiritually dead in trespasses and sins (i.e., deaf, blind, and in all ways humanly unresponsive to the Gospel). Is that possible? Not according Scripture. By contrast Paul states that “God from the beginning chose you for salvation” and His choice was by grace alone and was not in response to any human act.
The error of the Arminian is concluding that moral responsibility assumes moral ability. For example, Scripture declares that all sinners are morally responsible before God to perform the Law perfectly lest they perish by the just wrath of God. Does the Arminian contend that unregenerate sinners are able (morally capable) to keep the Law? Certainly not. It is at this intersection that the Arminian embraces a contradictory position and his theology disintegrates. For while he concedes that no man is able to perform the Law of God and that Scripture holds him morally responsible to do so, he turns a deaf ear to the plain truth of Scripture; viz., that in like manner unregenerate sinners are both morally responsible to respond positively to the Gospel, but morally unable to do so apart from the grace of God.
Beloved, salvation is of the Lord. Salvation is not part of the Lord and part man which is why none are able to boast. If salvation where part of the Lord and part man then men would have much to boast about. And this is without question the fruit of Arminianism. In their heart of hearts the Arminian is smug and arrogant, he is in fact like the rich man who stood before God as Lazarus as on his knees, and exclaimed, “I thank you God that I am not like this other fellow…for I made the correct choice in believing the Gospel” In what has this person placed their faith? Have they placed it in the finished work of Christ alone who saved them or are they trusting in “their faith” to save them? We agree that justification is by faith alone and at the same time give glory to God by whom our faith finds its origin, for it is Jesus Christ who is the author and perfecter of our faith and not we ourselves. Certainly Paul labors this point in Romans while discussing the election of Jacob before Esau, “for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls” (Rom. 9:11). Jacob, having been chosen for salvation by grace, is the passive recipient of grace. It is the sanctifying work of the Spirit which comes first in order in Paul’s statement because faith in the truth is the result of regeneration. And while the faith expressed by any sinner is “free” in the sense that the heart is moved with a desire for Christ, its presence is a gift of God to the elect whose salvation from eternity past is guaranteed, for Christ said with absolute certainty “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me” (Jn. 6:37).
The Gospel of Christ and the Apostles proclaims a particular salvation of the elect foreknown to the Father, not some theoretical universal salvation to all mankind where God has done His part by sending His Son, and now the sinner must do his part and in himself believe the Gospel. That is God providing the life-ring to a drowning victim where the swimmer in the end saves himself by taking hold of it. The biblical description of sinners is not that they are in serious trouble and about to go down for the last time, but that they are in fact dead and lying on the bottom of the lake, and dead people cannot take hold of the life-ring. The only way that is possible is that God first must enable them to do so. The Arminian version of grace is not that of the Bible and certainly not a description of grace as used by Paul, it is man focused and not God centered.
It was with joy over the grace of God that hymn writer John Newton beautifully proclaimed, “Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved; how precious did that grace appear the hour I first believed.” Newton rightly confessed that his faith was a gift of God and in response to being the recipient of divine grace. And He who begins a good work in the heart of a sinner is faithful and will complete that which He initiated. Unlike the fruit of Arminianism inclined toward inner pride (“I made the correct choice”) the fruit of the Calvanism is humility in the sight of God and man (“I am what I am by the grace of God”). Sola Dei Gloria!
Copyright (c) 2010 Immutable Word Ministries (“…the word of our God stands forever.” Isa. 40:8).
PDF No related posts.
The biblical description of sinners is not that they are in serious trouble and about to go down for the last time, but that they are in fact dead and lying on the bottom of the lake, and dead people cannot take hold of the life-ring. The only way that is possible is that God first must enable them to do so.
Wow, I don’t think I ever heard it quite put this way. I get it…. Excellent article… Thank you.
This was really wonderful ministry! Thank you and bless you brother
These scriptures below come from an excerpt from a very dear brother’s post a while back, which deals with the very issue of Who is responsible for our salvation from beginning to end. It was so wonderful to see it laid out like this and so I have shared it below to bless all who read it too.
Steph
Steph, just this morning I was reading and pondering Paul in the first chapter of Ephesians. Oh how marvelous, delightful, and inexpressible is His love toward us in the Beloved! My heart was overwhelmed with joy and wonder at His plan of redemption. Blessing to you my sister.
I am a five-point Calvinist who subscribes to the Lond Baptist Confession of 1689.
I know of no Arminian who will claim that he/she had an active role in his/her salvation. You and I think that they must believe that salvation is synergistic rather than monergistic, as a direct consequence of their belief in (libertarian) free will. But they don’t see that. In fact, most Arminians with whom I’ve discussed the subject have become angry when I label their position as “synergistic.”
Who knows best what they believe: us or them? And, how can I reasonably fault them for believing what they, in fact, deny? They don’t see synergism as a necessary implication of their system any more than we Calvinists see God being the author of evil as a necessary implication of ours. In claiming they’re synergistic, I’d be telling them what they believe. Isn’t it appropriate only for them to say what they believe? If I choose, as I regularly do, to point out what I see as a natural consequence of their system, that’s one thing. But, to accuse them of directly holding a position they deny does not seem to me either fair or productive.
So, my question for the Armiinian is not, Why do you believe contrary to the Scriptures that salvation is synergistic? Instead, it is, How do you remain consistent within your system and yet escape synergism, which we both know to be unbiblical? The difference in questions is, I think, very significant.
BTW, if you want to get further into the Arminian viewpoint, I urge you to be sure you understand their doctrine of “class election” and the contrast between the “ordo salutis” as understood by Ariminians and by Calvinists. However, you should be aware that there’s some question regarding the possibility of historical evolution of the Calvinists’ ordo salutis, which is not fully articulated in, for instance, the Westminster Confession.
Obviously, these issues are not simple ones or they’d have been resolved long ago. I’ve studied them and come to certain rather firm conclusions. But, I’m no theological scholar. I find it necessary to take what I say with a pound of salt. So, I hope I can be pardoned when I take what others say with at least a grain of salt.
Blessings,
Aron,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. We are in agreement in our observation that Arminian’s do not consciously claim to have taken an active role in their salvation; that to them would rightfully be blasphemous. We are also in agreement in assessing that Arminian’s do not think of their soteriology as necessarily synergistic in nature. That to which I address is the often unintended consequence of their soteriology that finds its basis in a deficient anthropology relative to and as a consequence of the Fall, and its expression subtly recognized in various forms. It is inherent within the fallen human condition to look upon the self as volitionally free. And we would likely also agree that the unregenerate man is free to exercise his will and does in fact do so. But I trust we would also agree that man’s will always chooses, indeed must choose, in accordance to his essential nature. And we would also agree that the unregenerate will is in bondage to sin by nature, hence volitional choices are in alignment to that base nature. We are in agreement too in acknowledging that no man knows what another man actually believes, even our Lord Jesus made that clear when He stated that no man knows that thoughts of another man, but only the spirit within the man. Nevertheless did not the same Lord of glory also state that a man’s thoughts may be discerned by his behavior in the form of words and actions, is that not the meaning of His words, “You will know them by their fruits” irrespective of their profession? Ought a man be faulted for the sincerity of his hereticaly held views that he is blind to? Most certainly, for to do less is unloving. Was it not James who instructed the church to turn erring brothers back to the truth, irrespective of the assumed sincerity of the erring brother in his beliefs? Was it not Paul who chastened the church of Corinth for allowing a man to sleep with his step-mother sincerely believing such behavior demonstrated a new level of spiritual enlightenment? Was it also not Paul who publicly confronted Peter regarding his hypocrisy relative to Gentile and Jewish dietary observations? Now as for your statement of God being the author of evil. By Scripture we know that the sovereignty of God is absolute and that all things came into being by Him and for Him, things visible and invisible. With regard to the origin of evil you state that God is the author of it. In drawing that conclusion I will allow you to walk that path alone. Scripture characterizes God as good and only good, describing the deity as dwelling in inapproachable light with no darkness in Him, unable to look upon evil, be tempted by evil, nor tempting anyone to perform evil. God is holy and absolutely pure in His essence. Nevertheless your statement does raise an age old problem: how do we account for the problem of evil considering that the God of creation is good? In 2000 John MacArthur delivered a sermon to his congregation and said in part, “God is not the author of evil. If God created evil, then God would be both good and evil. And if God were both good and evil, there would be no hope for the ultimate triumph of good, which the Bible promises. If God were himself evil, he could not, therefore, triumph over evil, so good could not triumph. If God were the source of evil, he would have to be evil himself. And if He were evil himself, then there could be no basis for salvation, for God could not save us from evil if evil was in His nature. So the Biblical revelation of the original goodness of creation protects the goodness of God. And it makes the source of evil outside of God. Only if the source of evil is outside of God can God conquer evil and can God save sinners from evil. And just as a footnote to that; if God used any kind of evolution to create, evolution is dependent on decay and death, all effects or reflections of evil. So if God used any kind of evolution to create, then God authored evil; He created decay and He created death. And if God used any form of evolution, then His creation was not all good; it was not perfect when he created it, and it is what it is now because of decay and death, which He must have used in his creation, which are evidences of evil, then God must himself be evil. But God is not evil. God is all good and only good…Let me put it to you simply: God is not responsible for evil. His creatures are. God is not responsible for evil. His creatures are. Everything — listen to this carefully — that God created was “very” what? “Good.” Everything. This is affirmed throughout the scripture. In Habakkuk Chapter 1: “God is of purer eyes than to” approve evil or “behold evil. He cannot look on wickedness.” Habakkuk Chapter 1, Verse 13. 1st Corinthians 14:33 says: “God is not the author of confusion.” Confusion is a product of sin. 1st John 1:5 says: “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.” James 1:13 says: “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts He any man.” 1st John 2:16 says: “All that is in the world,” all evil categorically, “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life, is not of the Father.” Psalm 5:4: “You are not a God who has pleasure in wickedness; neither will evil dwell with You.” Psalm 5:4. In fact, on a positive note, Isaiah 6, the antiphonal cry of the angels was that God was “Holy, holy, holy.” We see a glimpse of that, of course, when Jesus came into the world; God in human flesh. He was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners. God is not evil. God does not do evil. He cannot be tempted to do evil. He never tempts anybody else to do evil. God is not responsible for evil…The source of evil, the source of sin, is outside God. When God created angels and God created humans, he gave them intelligence. He gave them reason, and he gave them choice. And there is a sequence. I put those words in that order for a purpose. Intelligence gave them the ability to understand things. Reason gave them the ability to process that understanding toward behavior. And choice gave them the freedom to determine that behavior. Intelligence, reason, and choice. Bottom line: With what they knew, and with the ability they had to process that information, they would be brought to a choice. And whether angels or men, they would have the choice either to obey God or not to obey God. Listen to this: To disobey God was to initiate evil. Evil is not the presence of something. Evil is the absence of righteousness. You can’t create evil, because evil doesn’t exist as a created entity. It doesn’t exist as a created reality. Evil is a negative. Evil is the absence of perfection. It’s the absence of holiness. It’s the absence of goodness. It’s the absence of righteousness. Evil became a reality only when creatures chose to disobey. Evil came into existence initially then in the fall of angels. And then next, in the fall of Adam and Eve. Just put it this way in your mind. Evil is not a created thing. Evil is not a substance. Evil is not an entity. Evil is not a being. Evil is not a force. Evil is not some floating spirit. Evil is a lack of moral perfection. God created absolute perfection. Wherever a lack of that exists, sin exists. And that cannot exist in the nature of God or in anything that God makes. Evil comes into existence when God’s creatures fall short of the standard of moral perfection. Now, let me take it a step further. God did not create evil. He did not author evil. He did not make evil. But listen carefully, very important: God did decree to use evil as a part of his eternal plan, okay? He will not be culpable for it. He did not bring it into existence. That would be impossible because God is good, all good and only good. Therefore, whatever comes out of Him is all good and only good. God can, therefore, produce only good. And what is evil but the absence of that good, which is a choice made by the reasonings based upon the information revealed to his creatures? But, God was not caught off guard. In fact, God decreed that evil would be part of his plan. He is not the creator of evil, and He is not the cause of evil. He did not bring evil into existenc
e in a cosmic sense, and he did not and does not bring evil into existence in a personal sense. He is not the cause of sin, nor is he the cause of sins in the lives of people. But he does use it for his purposes. And that’s why in Isaiah 45:7 — just write this down; you may run across it. It says God creates “calamity.” Some older translations say He “creates evil.” That is a really poor translation, and not true. God does create “calamity.” And if you read the context of Isaiah 45:7, it is clear that judgment is the issue. God does not create evil, but God does bring judgment on evil, creating therefore the calamity by which evil is judged. Now, listen carefully: Scripture written by God always assigns the guilt and responsibility for all sin to creatures; never to God. Never to God. Folks, that’s all we know. Okay? I’ve taken you as deep as I can go. There’s nowhere else to go. That’s all we know. Beyond that, we operate in faith. We do know some things. We know God is holy, right? We know he is too pure to look on iniquity; can’t tolerate evil. We know He “tempts no man,” neither is tempted by any man. We know he is “Holy, holy, holy,” all the things we went through. “No evil dwells in Him.” “He is all light and no darkness.” We know that. We believe that. God is not the author of confusion. He is not the source of sin. We know that. We believe that. Sin comes into existence when the standard of moral perfection is not met, and that is an act based upon intellect, reason and choice made by his creatures. Now the question then comes up: Why? Why would God allow sin? Well, come on, now. I — I can only speculate.” While I do not agree with MacArthur on every theological point I do find much to agree with in his conclusion with respect to the origin of evil and exonerating God from it. Now with regard to your question to the Arminian, “How do you remain consistent within your system and yet escape synergism, which we both know to be unbiblical?”, I would point out that in their thinking their views are not unbiblical. As you and I would likely agree, however, the premise of their theological mooring finds its origin in a flawed anthropology, one that minimizes the impact of the Fall on the race. The Arminian applies a rationalistic and humanistic approach when wedding anthropology and soteriology, erroneously concluding that a moral imperative (believe the Gospel) assumes a moral ability apart from divine initiative. The point of departure before discussing soteriology with Arminians is revisiting biblical anthropology. To do otherwise is unproductive and putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Now with regard to the divergent viewpoints pertaining to Arminian and Calvanist understandings of ordo salutis. As you know the Arminian would assert that the ordering will be firstly an outward call by God; secondly, based upon that call an individual would exercise faith and thereby be elected; thirdly, repentance would follow confession; fourthly, based upon an individuals faith exercised they experience regeneration or are born again; fifthly, as a result of exercising faith they are now justified in the sight of God; sixthly, the individual is assisted by grace in perseverance, but must guard from falling away; and lastly, the individual will ultimately experience glorification. The problems with this view are many and proof-texting the Bible is the only way to make it plausible. On the other hand the Calvanistic view of ordo salutis is in harmony with the full counsel of God’s Word in context. For by it we contend that salvation is of the Lord. Firstly, from eternity past God has decreed the election of some to salvation according the good pleasure of His will; second, those foreknown to the Father are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son and glorified; third, the preaching of the Gospel is effectual to the hearing of the elect; forth, the elect experience an inward call by the grace of God; fifth, the elect are regenerated or born again in order that they may willingly express saving faith; sixth, the elect respond positively to the grace of God and experience conversion demonstrating faith and repentance; seventh, the elect are justified before God as a result of faith; eight, the elect are set apart or sanctified in Christ by the Holy Spirit of promise; lastly, the elect will experience glorification and their salvation is secure whereby they will persevere in the faith until death or until the Lord comes. The premise of my ditti The Fruit of Arminianism is simply this: while the Calvanist will confess before God and man that his being in Christ is completely the result of the grace of God (I believe because God awakened me from spiritual death to life, faith and repentance being a gifts from God to the elect) the Arminian by necessity must hold out a sliver of human contribution to his salvation testimony (I believed within myself and therefore am saved). And while we agree that the Arminian would confess their salvation is by the grace of God demonstrated by the Son of God dying on Calvary to atone for sin, they fail to accept the dire predicament of the human condition apart from the grace of God, concluding that there exists an island of righteousness within every sinner to seek after the things of God while spiritually dead in trespasses and sin. And in their heart of hearts they by necessity must conclude that they owe their salvation to God providing the opportunity through Christ, but in the final analysis it is their contribution of independent of God–that made the difference. And it is with this attitude that there can be a tendency to look down upon or feel superior to sinners who have rejected the Gospel, “I see the truth of the Gospel, why can’t you?” The Arminian fails to understand that the only reason they can see the truth of the Gospel is because it was first given to them—the elect—by God. When Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus replied, “Blessed are you Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” In contrast to the Arminian the Calvanist humbly understands that apart from the grace of God none will ever seek after God, none will ever see Jesus as the Christ, none will ever call upon Him in faith and be saved. Aron, thank you again for your comments I appreciate your heart as a disciple of Christ.
Okay, I’ll try to explain.
See in the fifth paragraph, where the author begins rebutting the proposition that “God is the author of evil?” This demonstrates that he/she didn’t understand my point. I didn’t claim that God is the author of evil. Quite the opposite.
I did claim that Arminians often charge that Calvinism makes God the author of evil. Calvinists never make or concede this claim. But Arminians tend to see it as a necessary consequence of Calvinism and charge that Calvinists do promote the claim.
The point of bringing up the problem of evil is that Calvinists can often see from this example that It really isn’t proper to charge one’s rhetorical opponent with believing a claim they reject. So, unless Calvinists take a definition of semi-Pelagian that’s broader than the historical definition (which, in itself, is a problematical choice akin to Geisler labeling modern Calvinists extreme Calvinists or Hunt labeling them hyper-Calvinists) they shouldn’t accuse Arminians of embracing semi-Pelagianism.
Instead, they should demand that Arminians demonstrate how their system accommodates the Scriptural doctrine of man’s corrupt nature. This will generally lead to a discussion of prevenient grace, which, to the Calvinist, raises a bunch of problems–not with mere implications but with explicit claims of the Arminain. For instance, where do we find prevenient grace taught in Scripture? Does everyone receive an equal portion of prevenient grace or does God distribute it unequallyy/unfairly? Doesn’t the idea of prevenient grace effectively contradict much that Paul, in particular, writes about sin and human nature? If prevenient grace is not effective in bringing about salvation, doesn’t salvation ultimately depend on human will/works rather than on God? Etc. The point is that now the Calvinist is attacking actual claims made by the Arminian rather than straw man claims the Calvinist supposes the Arminian to have made or accepted.
So, the bottom line. What am I trying to say? “Don’t put words in the other guy’s mouth.” Arminians don’t claim to be semi-Pelagian. So, don’t bother accusing them of being semi-Pelagian. For the most part, they won’t understand the charge anyway. They’ll just be insulted and become upset. That won’t persuade them of anything other than Calvinists’ ill temper.
I hope that helps. It’s very confusing to argue rhetoric, isn’t it? By the way could you make sure you post with paragraphs, very hard to read and respond to. Thank you.
Hi Anon (not sure if it’s your name, or short for anonymous?
)
I understand where you’re coming from, as I’m in a church that hosts quite a few people who have leanings towards Arminianism, and if not careful how I phrase things, it can become an Arminianist versus Calvinist battle.
Although I stand very much in the Calvinist camp myself, this is only because I believe the doctrines of grace line up with the Bible, and so it is ultimately the Bible I am in agreement with, just as we all are here.
I have found that when receiving the people I’m talking about as genuine brothers in the Lord, which I have absolutely no reason to doubt, and look directly to Scripture together as brothers coming to the Lord together for His wisdom, there is a very sincere a genuine dialogue that emerges. In fact, if I’m honest, as we have discussed certain things, not only have I managed to witness a change of heart beginning to happen in some, I have also fell under conviction of things in my own heart that were before completely unknown to me.
From what I can discern, this is not a disagreement about content, as much as how to convey those differences in a compassionate and loving manner, that will be readily received and responded to by those with a heart to know the truth. I know I am in total agreement with everything I’ve ever read that Jim has written here at Faith Defenders, but I also do understand where you’re coming from on this, and feel the same way to be honest.
Hope this doesn’t sound like I’m just someone trying to sit on the fence, because I’m rarely accused of that
!
Finally, although I don’t have time right now, I will insert the paragraphs into the above comment. I think it must have happened if Jim wrote the response somewhere else first, and then copied and pasted it in later.
God bless,
John.