By Michael Cariño, International Graduate School of Leadership

Amidst all the theological debates regarding the extent of Christ’s death on the cross, many Christians are left wondering whether we still can do an honest proclamation of the gospel – inviting all people to come to faith and repentance – while being bothered by the thought that Christ may not have actually died for the person we are evangelizing because he may not be one of the elect (those who were chosen to be saved) after all. Is the gospel “good news” for all who are lost or only for some who are lost but chosen? Can an evangelist sincerely tell an individual that Jesus Christ died specifically for him, and not doubt the honesty of his message?

Did Christ die for all people or did He die only for a selected few? A proper view of the extent of the atonement can have a serious impact on how we do evangelism and the content of the gospel message we proclaim.

It is my contention that Christ suffered and died on the cross for the sins of every individual person in the world, but his death is effective only when the individual accepts it. I agree with John Calvin who wrote, “Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for part of the world only, but for the whole human race.”[1] God sent Jesus Christ into the world that the world through Him might be saved (John 3:17). That is the reason why Jesus is referred to as the Savior of the world (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14). In dying for the whole world, Christ tasted death for every individual person (Hebrews 2:9), which makes Him truly the Savior of all men (1 Timothy 4:10). Atonement is unlimited in scope in the sense that the offer of salvation is for all men. Atonement is limited in effect in the sense that only those who believe in Jesus are truly saved.

God loves all people

The highest expression of God’s love for the whole world (John 3:16) is Christ dying for the sins “of the world.” Jesus was declared by John the Baptist as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Paul also tells us that Jesus died for all people: “For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; and therefore all have died. And he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised” (2 Corinthians 5:14-15).[2]

The New Testament words for “world” (kosmos), “whosoever” (pas), and “all” (pantoon) are universal in scope implying that Christ died for everyone in the world.[3] 1 John 2:1-2 clearly declares, “Jesus Christ… is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” Even Paul asserted in 1 Timothy 2:6 that Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all.” Because of God’s unlimited love (John 3:16) and God’s desire to reconcile the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19), Christ died for all individual persons in the world.

Millard Erickson observes that a contradiction exists between biblical affirmations about God’s love for the world and the view that Christ did not die for all people in the world. John 3:16 tells us that God’s love for all people requires that Christ died for all of them – all sinners (Romans 5:8), all ungodly men (Romans 5:6), all lost people (Luke 19:10), and all God’s enemies (Luke 23:34) – not limited only to the elect.[4] The Greek lexicons are unanimous that “world” in John 3:16 denotes humankind, not the “world of the elect”. [5]

David Allen, in The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ, speaks of God’s for every person without any exception:

Second Peter 3:9 states that God does not desire any to perish but rather desires all to come to repentance. How could God be said to love, with a desire to save, in any meaningful sense of the term, those for whom he did not provide atonement for their sins? Since no one can possibly be saved apart from the atonement of Christ, it is simply contradictory to speak of God’s universal love and his universal saving will on the limited atonement platform.

John 3:16 speaks in universal terms: “world” and “whoever” (NKJV). The text affirms God’s love for all people. His love is unrestrictive: the scope of his love is the entire world. John specifically says God gave Jesus to be an atonement for the sins of the world. “Just as God’s love encompasses the entire world, so Jesus made atonement for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).” There is no limitation here. There is, however, a condition for the benefits of Christ’s atonement to be effective for any individual: “everyone who believes.” God has annexed a condition on salvation: faith in Christ. The atonement is unlimited. The benefits of the atonement are limited to only those who believe.

God desires all people to be saved

Another significant argument for the unlimited atonement view is God’s desire for everyone to be saved. Peter described God as “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Furthermore, the New Testament is replete with passages that show that the gospel is to be proclaimed to all people in the world (Matthew 24:14; 28:19; Acts 1:8; etc.). In Acts 17:30, God “commands all men everywhere to repent.” Titus 2:11 also asserts, “the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men”, implying that the invitation to receive the gift of salvation is issued to all people and not only to a selected few (Matthew 11:28 and Revelation 22:17).

In light of the above passages, Wakefield asks: “If Christ died only for the elect, how can the offer of salvation be made to all persons without some sort of insincerity, artificiality, or dishonesty being involved? Is it not proper to offer salvation to everyone if in fact Christ did not die to save everyone?”[6] God’s character simply cannot find compatibility with any doctrine teaching that the death of Christ was offered only to some and not for all.

Millard Erickson’s comment on Isaiah 53:6 support the unlimited atonement view: “This passage is especially powerful from a logical standpoint. It is clear that the extent of sin is universal; it is specified that every one of us has sinned. It should also be noticed that the extent of what will be laid on the suffering servant exactly parallels the extent of sin. It is difficult to read this passage and not conclude that just as everyone sins, everyone is also atoned for.” He concluded, “that the hypothesis of universal atonement is able to account for a larger segment of the biblical witness with less distortion than is the hypothesis of limited atonement.” [7]

God saves those who believe in Christ and receive the free gift of salvation

The question now is, “If Christ atoned for all persons, is it not possible that all men will be saved?”[8] The answer to this inquiry should be, as Chafer would put it, “The provision of a Mediator and the grounds of mediation for the whole world does not save the world, but it does render the salvation of the individual possible…” Although Christ died for all men, only those who accept Christ’s death will be saved.[9] There are scriptural evidences that prove that some people, whom Christ died for, will perish (Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 8:11; Hebrews 10:29; 2 Peter 2:1) but those who believe are saved (Acts 16:31; John 3:36; 5:24).

Calvinists will point to verses connoting that Christ died for a specific people: his sheep (John 10:11); his friends (John 15:13); “many” (Heb. 9:28). Arminians will point to passages indicating that Jesus died for the “whole world” (1 John 2:2); “all” (2 Cor. 5:15); “every man” (Heb. 2:9).

I believe that the redemptive benefits of Christ’s death are both specific and universal. Christ’s blood was shed for His Church. Jesus “loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). The Church was “bought with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). That makes the atonement of Christ specific — it was for His Church. But the atonement is also universal in the sense that the Church’s gates are wide open to “everyone who calls” (Rom. 10:13), to “him who is thirsty” (Rev. 21:6), to “all you who are weary and burdened” (Matt. 11:28). The invitation to believe and enter the Church extends to “every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). In that sense, the atonement is universal and available to all. The atonement, therefore, is both limited and universal. It is both specific and general.

J.C. Ryle similarly states: “Christ is…a Savior for all mankind….He did not suffer for a few persons only, but for all mankind….What Christ took away, and bore on the cross, was not the sin of certain people only, but the whole accumulated mass of all the sins of all the children of Adam….I hold as strongly as anyone that Christ’s death is profitable to none but the elect who believe in His Name. But I dare not limit and pare down such expressions as the one before us….I dare not confine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every man….The atonement was made for all the world, though it is applied and enjoyed by none but believers.”[10]

God makes the provision of salvation for all men, but it is conditioned by faith. Thus, salvation becomes actual only for those who believe, although it is potential and available to all. “Our inheriting eternal life involves two separate factors: an objective factor (Christ’s provision of salvation) and a subjective factor (our acceptance of that salvation).”[11] Although the provision of atonement is unlimited, yet the application of it is limited.

In his book The Death Christ Died, Robert Lightner explains: “[Moderate Calvinists] believe the cross does not apply its own benefits but that God has conditioned His full and free salvation upon personal faith in order to appropriate its accomplishments to the individual. This faith, which men must exercise, is not a work whereby man contributes his part to his salvation, nor does faith, in the moderate Calvinist view, improve in any way the final and complete sacrifice of Calvary. It is simply the method of applying Calvary’s benefits which the sovereign God has deigned to use in His all-wise plan of salvation.”[12]

Conclusion

Christ suffered and died on the cross for the sins of every individual person in the world, but his death is effective only when the individual accepts it. God sent Jesus Christ into the world so that the world through Him might be saved (John 3:17). That is the reason why Jesus is referred to as the Savior of the world (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14). In dying for the whole world, Christ tasted death for every individual person (Hebrews 2:9), which makes Him truly the Savior of all men (1 Timothy 4:10). Atonement is unlimited in scope in the sense that the offer of salvation is for all men. Atonement is limited in effect in the sense that only those who believe in Jesus are truly saved.

— — - - — - -

[1]John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdsman Publishing Co., 1949), I, p. 123-125.
[2]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology 1st ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1985), 829-830.
[3]Logos Bible, 188, 250, 242.
[4] Erickson, 832.
[5] Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistles of Saint John: The Greek Text With Notes and Essays, Macmillan and Co. Limited, Cambridge, UK Date Published: 1886
[6] Samuel Wakefield, A Complete System of Christian Theology (Cincinnati: Hitchcock and Walden, 1869), p.383 as quoted by Erickson, 831-832.
[7] Erickson, 830-833.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Salvation: A Clear Analysis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965), 26.
[10] http://www.biblebb.com/files/ryle/do_you_believe.htm, DO YOU BELIEVE?, J. C. Ryle (1816-1900) Drummond’s Tract Depot, Stirling, Scotland
[11] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Salvation: A Clear Analysis, 31-39.
[12] Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died: A Biblical Case for Unlimited Atonement (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998), 56.

By Michael Cariño, International Graduate School of Leadership

Since the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Evangelicals have been divided by different perspectives regarding the process of conversion and regeneration. A proper understanding of the order of salvation will impact the believers’ paradigm and practice of evangelism today. One controversial question that Christians are wrestling with is “Do we become born again in order to believe, or do we believe in order to become born again?”. Is “believing in Christ” a condition or a consequence of the new birth? This paper aims to answer this question without going through the details of what conversion and regeneration is. I will focus on the question whether we are converted because we are already regenerated, or does God regenerate those who repent and believe.

It is my position that an individual must repent and believe in order to become born again. The moment a person trusts Christ for salvation, only then can he experience the new birth.

We Must Believe In Order To Become Born Again

Because conversion refers to man’s response to God’s offer of salvation, and regeneration refers to God’s transformation and infusion of new life to individuals who accepted Christ,[1] the logical flow of thought would be that God regenerates those who believe. The New Testament is replete with references that reflect God’s command for all men everywhere to repent and believe in Christ in order to be saved (John 1:12-13; 3:18; 5:24; 6:47; 20:31; Romans 10:9-13; Acts 2:38; 13:38-39; 16:31; 17:30; Revelation 22:17).

John 1:12-13 states, “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God”. The word “to believe”, came from the root word meaning “faith” or “trust”.[2] Among the NT range of meanings, Louw and Nida defines it in this passage as “to believe in the good news about Jesus Christ”, “to become a follower”, “to be a believer”, or “to be a Christian”. [3] The word “received”, is in the active voice implying human responsibility and in the aorist tense denoting summary action that happened in the past. The apostle John further states that those who “believed” (active voice) has been “born of God” (passive voice). He goes on to explain in verse 13 that the nature of this new birth is spiritual and not physical. Thus, I believe that faith in Christ is the requirement before an individual can experience spiritual birth.

The apostle Paul affirmed the same idea in Acts 16:31, when the Philippian jailer asked him “what must I do to be saved?”. Paul declared that the only way for a person to be saved is to “Believe in the Lord Jesus.” The word “believe” in this passage is in the imperative mood and in the active voice, which means that the person is being commanded to put his faith in Christ. The use of the conjunction kai connects the previous imperative clause to the next clause, “and you shall be saved…” denoting that salvation is the consequence of believing in Christ. The word ”shall be saved”, is in the indicative mood, which stresses certainty.[5] It is also in the future tense with a passive voice, which means that salvation is a guaranteed promise to those who would believe.[6] I suppose that the shift in the voice is significant in the interpretation of this passage – “Believe in the Lord Jesus” (active voice) and “you shall be saved” (passive voice). When we trust Christ or receive Him into our hearts as Lord and Savior, God saves us and gives us new life (John 3:16-18; 1 John 5:11-13).

In light of the above discussion, my conviction that  conversion precedes regeneration brings us to at least two important points. First, man’s responsibility is to repent and believe, but regeneration is the work of God. Second, the call to repent and believe is addressed to all unregenerated sinners (not to regenerated saints).

God’s Grace and Human Responsibility

Due to Adam’s fall, all men are born in sin with Adam’s sin nature. Thus, man’s nature was corrupted by sin. As a result, man is totally depraved, and unable to change his sinful nature. It is my conviction, however, that total depravity does not mean total inability. Spiritual “death” simply means spiritual “separation” from God. Because the image of God in man was not eradicated after the fall, man’s will is free to choose the gift of salvation. Yet, although man has a free will, he has no capacity for saving himself. God by His grace, through the convicting and illuminating work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11; Revelation 22:17), draws people to Himself. I believe man has the responsibility to either accept or resist the prompting of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51), thus, no one is ever saved against his will.[7]

Salvation is an unconditional gift. The question is not whether there are any conditions for God giving salvation but whether there are any conditions for man receiving salvation. Faith is the condition for receiving salvation. That is why John 3:18 says, “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son”. [8] Saving faith is the means for regeneration, and not the result of regeneration. Therefore, it is my view that the new birth takes place the moment a person trusts Christ and not before they trust Christ.

But how can a person have the ability to believe the gospel? How do we explain the dynamic interaction between God’s grace and human response in light of the salvation process? I agree with Terrence Tiessen, in his book Who Can Be Saved? , when he presented a remarkable proposal that gives a balanced approach on the matter:

God gives everyone sufficient grace to enable them to believe in Him… Not only does everyone receive revelation sufficient to lead to salvation if responded to with faith, but at least once in everyone’s life that divine revelation is accompanied by divine enabling that makes a faith response possible, in the sense that people are justly condemned for failing to believe when God is made known to them on that occasion.[9]

This is the reason why Paul, in Ephesians 2:8-9, declares that the gift of salvation came from God (genitive of source), it is based on God’s grace (dative of means), and it is received by means of faith (genitive of means).[10]

God’s Command for Sinners to Repent and Believe

In Acts 17:30, Paul tells us “now [God] commands all people everywhere to repent”. 1 John 3:23 also states, “And this is His command: to believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ…” I am convinced that the apostle Peter was speaking to an unregenerated crowd when he asked them to believe and repent (Acts 3:19), with the word metanoia (repent) in the imperative mood.[11] If unregenerate sinners were incapable of repenting, why would God command them to do so? Is it consistent for a God of justice and love to require people to repent and believe if He knew that they are not able to, and still hold them culpable for not obeying the command?

To teach that a person must be regenerated first before he is able to believe in Jesus Christ is to contradict biblical evidences showing diverse appeals to unregenerated persons to respond to the gospel.[12] It is my conviction that God calls the sinner to give his life to Christ, not because he has already been saved but rather because he is lost and must come to Jesus in order to be saved. All unregenerated sinners, including those who persist in rejecting Him (Romans 10:20), are being invited by God to receive the free gift of salvation with the assurance that “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13).[13]

Balanced and Objective Defense against Alternative Views

Extreme Calvinist View

Extreme Calvinism defines total depravity as total inability. They mean the elimination of all human ability to understand or respond to God. Sin destroyed man’s ability to accept God’s gift of salvation. The human will is in bondage to sin and cannot respond to the call of God unto salvation. Sinners are not free because they are dead to sin, therefore, the non-elect are unable to repent and believe. Therefore, they teach that God has to first regenerate man and give him faith before he can believe.[14]

They believe that God predestines those who will be saved and those who will be lost. The Westminster Confession put it in these words: “By the decree of God … some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.”[15] They hold that this predestination is based solely upon the will of God and has nothing to do with the response of man. The Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call, through God’s irresistible grace, that inevitably brings them to salvation. This internal call cannot be rejected. Thus, God’s work of regeneration effected by the Holy Spirit precedes the human activity of repentance and faith.[16]

Response to the Extreme Calvinist View

Although I agree that God’s grace is the solution to man’s incapacity to save himself, I do not agree that the grace sufficient for salvation is only applied to the elect. Titus 2:11 states, “For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men”. Furthermore, I do not agree that God’s grace cannot be resisted (Acts 7:51). I believe that God refuses to force against their will, those who do not will to receive divine grace. Love works persuasively, but not coercively.[17] Grace can be rejected by unbelief. Therefore, while salvation depends entirely upon God’s initiative, it is not imposed. Man must open the door of his heart.[18]

Extreme Arminian View

Extreme Arminianism believes that, although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. Man did not inherit Adam’s sin nature, but is responsible only for those sins they personally and consciously perform. They teach that man simply acquired a tendency to sin (sinful disposition) because of the fall, but each sinner possesses a free will and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters.[19]

The sinner has the power to either accept Christ and be regenerated or resist God and perish. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation. They believe that the sinner cannot become born again until he believes; faith proceeds and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man’s free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ’s saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life.[20]

Response to the Extreme Arminian View

Although I agree that human freedom was not completely destroyed after Adam’s fall, I do not agree that man does not have a sinful nature inherited from Adam but only acquired a sinful disposition. I believe that every person born into this world is inherently sinful, corrupted and fallen, thus desperately in need of God’s salvation. Moreover, while I agree that a sinner cannot become born again until he believes, I do not agree that man’s eternal destiny is dependent entirely on his free will. I believe that salvation is totally dependent on God and not on man. God begins and completes our salvation. He initiates and concludes, we only respond. God, through divine revelation and the preaching of the gospel, together with the illumination of the Holy Spirit and His all-sufficient grace, enables every willing person to believe in Jesus Christ and receive the gift of eternal life.[21] No one can believe the gospel without the help of God’s grace (John 6:44; 1 Corinthians 15:10; 2 Corinthians 12:9; Philippians 2:12-13).

Conclusion

An individual must repent and believe in order to become born again. The moment a person trusts Christ for salvation, only then can he experience the new birth, and not the other way around. Man’s responsibility is to repent and believe, but regeneration is the work of God. The command to repent and believe is addressed to all unregenerated sinners, not to regenerated saints. A proper understanding of this order of salvation will impact the believers’ paradigm and practice of evangelism today, especially in the content of the gospel message that is being preached (i.e. the necessity of faith prior to regeneration) and the manner by which a person is being led to Christ (i.e. the command to repent addressed to unregenerated sinners).

— - - - - - -

[1]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology 1st ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1985), 932-942.

[2]James Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (NY,USA: Abingdon Press, 1890),58

[3]Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (WA, USA: United Bible Society, 1989), 31.35.

[4]Bill Bright, The Four Spiritual Laws (GA, USA: New Life Resources, 1951), 8-9,13, [booklet on-line]; available from http://www.greatcom.org/english/four.htm; Internet; accessed 30 November 2006.

[5]Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 448.

[6]The Logos Bible: New Testament (Seoul, Korea: Logos Publishing Company, 1992), 580.

[7]Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free (Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 2001) 29-37; John Sanders, The God Who Risks (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 251; and Terrence Tiessen, Who Can be Saved? (Leicester, UK: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 230-239.

[8]Geisler, Chosen But Free, 35.

[9]Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved?, 239.

[10]The Logos Bible: New Testament, 806; Wallace, 109, 125; and Harold Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 340-345.

[11]Logos, 586.

[12]Erickson, Christian Theology 1st ed., 932;

[13]Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon Vs. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Pennsylvania, USA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), 73-80; Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell, Why I Am Not A Calvinist (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 97-110; and Lewis Sperry Chafer, “The One Condition of Salvation” in Salvation: A Clear Doctrinal Analysis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1917), 31-39.

[14]H. Hanko and H.C. Hoeksema and J. Van Baren, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1976), 18; R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers Inc., 1986), 72; David Steele and Curtis Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1963), 22-25.

[15]Westminster Confession of Faith [chapter 3, section 3], (J.G. Ecces Printers, 1976), 29.

[16]Steele and Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, 22-25; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdsman Publishing Co., 1946), 316-319.

[17]Stephen Thorson, “Tensions in Calvin’s View of Faith,” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society, ed. Ronald Youngblood (Vol. 37, no. 3), 413-424; W. Wiley Richards, “Southern Baptist Identity: Moving Away From Calvinism,” Baptist History and Heritage, ed. Slyden Yarbrough (Vol. 31, no.2, January 1996), 29-33; and Geisler, Chosen But Free, 53-55.

[18]W. T. Purkiser, Richard S. Taylor, and Willard H. Taylor, “God’s Initiative and Man’s Response”, from God, Man, and Salvation (Kansas City, USA: Beacon Hill, 1977).

[19]Gordon Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 78-79.

[20]Ibid.

[21]J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Salvation, the Holy Spirit, and Christian Living (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 40-48; Clark Pinnock, The Grace of God and The Will of Man (Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), 21-22; and Kenneth Collins, The Scripture Way of Salvation: The Heart of John Wesley’s Theology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 47-50,78-79.

— - - - - - -

Does John 3:16 Say “Whoever”? | By William Mounce

I have received several questions about the use of “whoever” in the translation of John 3:16, so I thought it would be good to clarify at least one thing.

Correct, the indefinite relative pronoun ὅστις does not occur in John 3:16, but language is not so monolithic that there is only one way to say something. In fact, whenever a commentary argues that if the author had meant to say one thing, he would have said it “this way,” you should be suspicious. That’s a naive approach to language.

However, we do have an indefinite construction in John 3:16 with the use of πᾶς and an articular imperfective participle (πᾶς ἡ πιστευών) used to indicate a generic, “general utterance” (see Wallace, 615f.). Just do a search for that construction and you can see it is universal in intent.

For example, “But I say to you that whoever looks at (πᾶς ὁ βλέπων) a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt 5:28). Isn’t Jesus saying this is a generic statement, true of all who look with the intent of lusting? Of course it is.

Interestingly, v 28 is followed by v 32 that uses another explicitly indefinite contraction. “But I say to you that anyone who divorces (ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ) his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery” (Matt 5:32). ὃς ἄν is explicitly indefinite and general.

The first meaning of πᾶς in BDAG is “pert[aining] to totality with focus on its individual components, each, every; any.” The second is “any and every.” Sounds indefinite to me.

Contextually, John is asserting a relatively unusual notion that God not only loves those who follow him (John’s normal usage) but he actually loves the entire world, hence requiring an indefinite construction. To limit the meaning of the statement to a subgroup of people, “those among you who believe,” is to read in a theology not supported by the Greek (and I am Reformed).

“Contextually, John is asserting a relatively unusual notion that God not only loves those who follow him (John’s normal usage) but he actually loves the entire world, hence requiring an indefinite construction. To limit the meaning of the statement to a subgroup of people, “those among you who believe,” is to read in a theology not supported by the Greek (and I am Reformed).” – William Mounce

In the larger context, it agrees with statements like 1 Tim 2:4 that says God “wishes all people (πάντας ἀνθρώπους) to be saved and to come into a knowledge of the truth.”

True, each/every person who believes is a subset of the whole (the “world”), and the gift of eternal life is only for that subset, but to somehow limit God’s love to a subset of people runs counter to the Greek, the meaning of πᾶς, the grammar, the immediate context, and the larger context. If you believe in election (as I do), then you understand πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων as referring to the elect, but let’s not dismiss the clear meaning of the text and suggest that God does not, in some way, love the world.

Can you translate the verse without “whoever”? Sure, as long as you choose words that are not limiting. “God loved the world so he gave his only Son, that every one who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.”

— - - - - - -

Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism | Taken from the Book Review By Jeremy Craft

The book, Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, edited by David Allen and Steve Lemke, seeks to deal with the rise of Calvinism among Southern Baptists while also seeking to benefit the broader evangelical community. The contributors in this book claim to be neither fully Calvinist nor fully Arminian, but keep “the two more in balance, learning from both, counting themselves as being in the mainstream of the Baptist theological tradition”. This, they claim, represents more accurately the Southern Baptist Convention both historically and presently.

Consequently, this book should not be read as if the writers were advancing a specific theological system. They are not. Thus it should not be assumed that each contributor fully agrees with the others in their approach to the specific doctrine or issue they are discussing at hand. Rather the purpose is to that show that various views have traditionally been present within the Southern Baptist Convention.

The introduction begins by telling how Jacob Arminius and the early Remonstrants held to a very high view of total depravity, a view that many may very well consider to be a Calvinistic statement. They argue that Arminius and his followers were not Pelagian or semi-Pelagian in their anthropology. Instead, Arminius and the Remonstrants thought that humans could not save themselves based on their own efforts or free will, but relied solely upon the Holy Spirit to bring them to God the Father through Jesus Christ. For Arminians, these statements are refreshing because this has been a common misconception taught by many Calvinists. However, for most of the book, the writers reference Arminian works very little, giving the impression that they are not fully committed to the thought of Arminius himself.

Following the introduction, the book divides into two parts. The first half of the book addresses the five points of Calvinism exegetically, theologically, and historically. In particular, the doctrines of limited atonement and irresistible grace are heavily combated by many of the contributors throughout the book.

For instance, David Allen’s essay on the atonement gives ample support for universal atonement. He argues that some form of universal atonement was a doctrine commonly discussed during the Protestant Reformation. He gives extensive quotes from Martin Luther, and even Calvin, that show them advocating a form of universal atonement. He also quotes several confessional statements such as the Heidelberg Catechism and the Thirty-Nine Articles, which seem to adopt universal atonement. Even more so he displays interpretive fallacies from scholars such as D. A. Carson concerning the exegesis of John 3:16 (if available), and other passages known to traditionally promote universal atonement.

Steve Lemke argues that grace is resistible in his essay. As Lemke presents several texts that advocate resistible grace, he claims that the “plain sense reading of these texts tends to support the belief that God’s grace, by His own intent design, is resistible”. He pointedly argues that Calvinists read their theological system into texts, which otherwise clearly shows from a simple reading people resisting the Holy Spirit.

When giving his theological assessment of irresistible grace, he argues that it may appear as if God is having an internal conflict resulting from Calvinist distinction between God’s general call and effectual call. He states that many Calvinists consider it a mystery, but quotes some as acknowledging that it is a contradiction that cannot be explained.

Furthermore, part two of the book discusses various issues that arise out of Calvinist theology. Among the various topics, Kevin Kennedy’s discussion on the issue of Calvin and his views on the extent of atonement is very insightful. He explains how likely it is for one to think that Calvin held to universal atonement when various universal statements in his writings are analyzed. When reading some of the statements quoted by Kennedy, a very compelling case can be made supporting Calvin’s belief in universal atonement.

Calvinism’s effect on Baptist life is the discussion of Malcolm Yarnell’s essay. He argues that many aspects of Baptist theology do not line up with Calvinist dogma and can unknowingly affect a local congregation over time.

Jeremy Evans offers some insight on a much heated topic within theology—determinism and human freedom. He states the two predominant views within this discussion are compatibilism (the Calvinist view that seeks to make human freedom and determinism compatible with each other) and libertarian freedom (the Arminian and non-Calvinist view, which denies any form of determinism to be compatible with human freedom). He does not establish a positive argument concerning libertarian freedom. However, he advocates that a high view of God’s sovereignty is compatible with libertarian freedom. He also seeks to critique compatibilistic freedom and show that human responsibility in no way coincides with any form of determinism. His main objection to this approach is that humans cannot be considered logically responsible for sin under deterministic freedom because it is a logical conclusion of God’s ordaining will.

Overall, the authors do an adequate job addressing some key issues that call into check five-point Calvinism, especially the doctrines of irresistible grace and limited atonement. Though Calvinism may be on the rise, it is a reminder that not all Christians adhere to it and notice serious problems with its theology, despite its dominance in the theological realm. However, readers may find that there are some sections of the book where the contributors interact with Scripture very little while others use it very thoroughly in their arguments. At the same time, as with any book with multiple contributors, some essays are stronger than others, which can diminish the overall strength of the book.

Though Calvinism may be on the rise, it is a reminder that not all Christians adhere to it and notice serious problems with its theology, despite its dominance in the theological realm.

The book Whosoever Will offers a fresh perspective on key issues that have been debated among Calvinists and Arminians for centuries. Despite its primary focus being directed toward Southern Baptist, people on both sides of the spectrum can draw from this book. Neither Calvinists nor Arminians will be in full agreement concerning the issues in this book. However, it offers a needed corrective to Calvinism and adds a sense of refreshment for those troubled with key doctrinal issues the movement promotes.

Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism | Taken from the Book Review By William Klein

Is Calvinism the only orthodox option for evangelicals? Must any alternative to Calvinism be termed Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, on the road to open theism, or on the brink of heresy? The writers of Whosoever Will argue that one can be a card-carrying evangelical—even a Southern Baptist!—and reject the major tenets of Calvinism. They insist that alternatives to the central Calvinist distinctives (often reduced to though not to be limited to the acronym TULIP) have always been viable within the Sothern Baptist Convention and among Baptists more broadly. Of course, anyone familiar with the labels “General” Baptist and “Particular” Baptist should know that already.

Is Calvinism the only orthodox option for evangelicals? Must any alternative to Calvinism be termed Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, on the road to open theism, or on the brink of heresy? The writers of Whosoever Will argue that one can be a card-carrying evangelical—even a Southern Baptist!—and reject the major tenets of Calvinism.

Readers will find careful studies of the extent of the atonement; whether grace is irresistible; and perseverance and assurance (the book’s weakest chapter evidencing a too simplistic use of Scripture). Part two of the book addresses wider issues that impinge on the debate: whether Calvin was a “Calvinist”; the potential impact of Calvinism on local churches; the public invitation to salvation; determinism and human freedom; and evil and God’s sovereignty.

While the writing is uneven among the different authors and not all the authors are equally sophisticated exegetically, the overall effect is striking. Careful and irenic throughout, the book exposes one of the potential dangers of systematic theology: embracing a structure and making the biblical texts fit into it. That is, taken point by point, the authors argue that a fair and straightforward reading of the biblical texts and the history of theological writing does not support the Calvinist structure. Some chapters attempt a novel understanding of the categories, as in R. Land’s view of “election” from an “eternal now” perspective (not convincing, in my estimation). But most of the authors simply show how unlikely, if not unbiblical, in their view, is the Calvinist “take” on the central issues.

In various places the authors expose misunderstandings that Calvinists sometimes exhibit about those who oppose them, or how they confuse categories in their uses of terms. As one example, S. Lemke exposes D.A. Carson’s misuse of the category of “compatibilism” (pp. 150-152). It does not mean that human freedom and divine sovereignty are compatible (this is the way that Carson uses it). Everyone—whether Calvinist, Arminian, or open theist—affirms that. Rather, as correctly understood, compatibilists assert that true human freedom is compatible with hard determinism. Those are more difficult to reconcile. In one of the most trenchant chapters in the book (“A Biblical and Theological Critique of Irresistible Grace”; pp. 109-62), Lemke shows that to allege that God determines what people will want, so that they freely choose what God has determined them to want, eviscerates any reasonable view of human freedom. In his chapter on “The Atonement,” D. Allen attacks the doctrine of limited atonement, showing, in the process, how many Calvinists throughout history also rejected that idea, including Calvin himself! In fact, K. Kennedy devotes his chapter (“Was Calvin a Calvinist? John Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement”) to showing that Calvin did not espouse many of the tenets of five-point Calvinists today.

Strangely, however, all the authors evade labeling themselves as Arminian—or even using the term positively—though several state explicitly they are not Calvinists nor Reformed. Though espousing views that most would put under the category of Arminian, they feel compelled to avoid the label, apparently concluding that Arminianism is inherently problematic if not heretical. Perhaps they eschew the Arminian label because they all reject the idea that a true believer can lose her or his salvation. Is it possible that they do not realize that some Arminians embrace so-called eternal security? In fact, Arminius himself did not take a position on this matter since he thought the biblical evidence was not clear. But it is puzzling that a book that aims to avoid two extremes (Southern Baptists should never be Calvinists, and true Southern Baptists must be Calvinists; p. 5), the obvious alternative to Calvinism is shunned. I suspect this may be a political necessity in the current climate of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Nevertheless, this book may be the best critique of Calvinism available today. It should be required reading for any pastor or theology student—particularly if one is a Calvinist or unsure of where he or she stands. The authors interact with the major Calvinist writers and thinkers both ancient and modern (e.g., Augustine, J. Calvin, D.A. Carson, G. Clark, J. Edwards, C. Hodge, J. MacArthur, A. Mohler, R. Nicole, J. Owen, J. Piper, and T. Schreiner) and go toe-to-toe with them in engaging and helpful ways—all with a very irenic spirit, as I noted above. While these essays won’t dislodge all Calvinists from their position, they will force readers to think through the issues—and the biblical data—more carefully. Perhaps some will reconsider whether the “Westminster” variety is the best version of Reformed theology to embrace. For those still trying to navigate their way through the various questions, this book will supply helpful analyses of the relevant texts and issues, and raise important theological and practical matters in how theology works out in the church today. Theology is not only espoused; it must be lived out with integrity. I especially commend this book to all teachers of theology—both for their own greater understanding of the issues and as a potential course text for their students.

[This post is taken from “Why Blame Me?” in the book Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will (Bethany House Publishers, 2001) by Norman Geisler]

If God is in control of everything, then why should we be blamed for anything? If an all-knowing God knows what we are going to do before we ever do it—and if He cannot be wrong—then is not this the way it’s going to happen regardless of what we do?

Or to put the problem another way, if God is in control of all events, then how can I be responsible for anything that happens, even my evil actions? It would seem that His sovereignty eliminates my responsibility.

THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT

Some believers have been known to excuse their sin, claiming: “The devil made me do it!” But the problem here is even greater, because logically one cannot stop at this point. For if God is in sovereign control of all things, then instead it would appear that, ultimately, “God made me do it.”

Indeed, one response to the problem of divine sovereignty and human responsibility is that of extreme Calvinism. This response claims that free choice simply is doing what we desire, but that no one ever desires to do anything unless God gives him the desire to do so. If all of this were so, then it would follow that God would be responsible for all human actions.

If it were true, then the Bible should say that God gave Judas the desire to betray Christ. But it does not. Rather, it says, “the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus” (John 13:2).

Nor does it help to claim that God gives only good desires but not evil ones and that all other choices result from our evil natures. For neither Lucifer nor Adam had an evil nature to begin with, and yet they sinned. Further, why doesn’t God give a good desire to all?

WHO MADE THE DEVIL DO IT?

For the strong (extreme) Calvinists the ultimate question is: Who made the devil do it? Or, more precisely, who caused Lucifer to sin? If free choice is doing what one desires, and if all desires come from God, then it follows logically that God made Lucifer sin against God! But it is contradictory to say that God ever could be against God. God is essentially good. He cannot sin (Heb. 6:18). In fact, He cannot even look with approval on sin. Habakkuk said to God: “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong” (1:13). James reminds us that “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone” (1:13).

So, if for no other reason, the strong Calvinist’s position must be rejected because it is contradictory. And the Bible exhorts us to “avoid contradictions” (1 Tim. 6:20 NKJV). Opposites cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. God cannot be good and not good. He cannot be for His own essential good and be against it by giving Lucifer the desire to sin against Him. In short, God cannot be for Himself and against Himself at the same time and in the same sense.

Consequently, some less strong Calvinists claim that God does not give any evil desires but only good ones. However, this view has two problems. First, why would God give a desire to do good only to some and not to all? If He is all-loving, then surely He would love all, as the Bible says He does (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). Second, this does not explain where Lucifer got the desire to sin. If it did not come from God, then it must have come from himself. But in that case, his original evil act was self-caused, that is, caused by himself—which is exactly the view of human free will the strong Calvinist rejects.

WHO MADE THE DEVIL?

If God did not make the devil do it, then who did? More simply, who made the devil? The biblical answers to these questions are: God did not make the devil, and He did not make the devil do it. Rather, God made a good angel called Lucifer, who became the devil by his own free choice to sin.

God made only good creatures

The Bible affirms that God made only good creatures. After almost every day of Creation it says, “and it was good” (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). And after the last day, it declares, “It was very good” (1:31). Solomon added, “This only have I found: God made mankind upright …” (Eccl. 7:29). We are told explicitly that “every creature of God is good” (1 Tim. 4:4 KJV). And an absolutely good God cannot make an evil thing. Only a perfect creature can come from the hands of a perfect Creator.

God gave free choice to good creatures

One of the things God gave His good creatures was a good power called free will. God said to Adam: “You are free …” (Gen. 2:16). Mankind intuitively recognizes freedom as being good; only those who usurp and abuse power deny it, and yet even these value and seek it for themselves. And people never march against freedom. One never sees a crowd carrying placards: “Down with freedom!” or “Back to bondage!” And even if someone did speak against freedom, he would thereby be speaking for it, since he values his freedom to express that idea. In short, free choice is an undeniable good, since it affirms its own good even when attempting to deny it.

Free choice is the origin of evil

However, the power of moral free choice entails the ability either to choose the good God designed for us or to reject it. The latter is called evil. It is good to be free, but freedom makes evil possible. Free will is good in itself, but entailed in that good is the ability to choose the opposite of good, which then makes evil possible.

If God made free creatures, and if it is good to be free, then the origin of evil is in the misuse of freedom. This is not hard to understand. We all enjoy the freedom to drive, but many abuse this freedom and drive recklessly. Yet we should not blame the government that gives us the license to drive for all the evil we do with our cars. Those whose irresponsible driving kills others are responsible for what has happened. Remember: the government that gave us the permission to drive has also informed us how to drive safely.

Likewise, God is morally accountable for giving the good thing called free will, but He is not morally responsible for all the evil we do with our freedom. Solomon said it well: “This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes” (Eccl. 7:29). In brief, God made the fact of freedom; we are responsible for the acts of freedom. The fact of freedom is good, even though some acts of freedom are evil. God is the cause of the former, and we are the cause of the latter.

DID GOD MAKE ME DO IT?

Staunch Calvinist Jonathan Edwards “solved” the problem of predestination and free will by claiming that (1) free will is doing what we desire; (2) but God gives us the desire to do good. What about the desire to do evil? That comes from our fallen nature, which desires only evil. Apart from God giving us the desire to do good, we naturally desire to do evil.

However, the faithful followers of Edwards admit this does not solve the issue of where Lucifer and Adam got the desire for their first sin. R. C. Sproul calls this an “excruciating problem,” adding: “One thing is absolutely unthinkable, that God could be the author or doer of sin.” Yet this problem is “excruciating” only because Sproul believes in the law of noncontradiction, and it appears to be a contradiction to hold, as he does, all of these premises:

1. God cannot give anyone the desire to sin;
2. Originally, neither Lucifer nor Adam had a sinful nature;
3. The will does not move unless given a desire by God or by its own nature.

And here is the unmistakable conclusion: both Lucifer and Adam sinned because God gave them the desire to sin. But Sproul is not willing to give up on premises 1 or 2 under any circumstances. Therefore, premise 3 must be false, since it is contradictory to the other premises he believes are absolutely true. For it is certain that Lucifer neither had an evil nature, nor did God give him the desire to sin.

Conversely, if the followers of Jonathan Edwards insist on clinging to their flawed view of human freedom, then their God must take the rap for giving Lucifer and Adam the desire to sin. For if the original perfect creature’s will is in neutral and is unmoved until God moves on it (having no sinful nature to move it toward sin), then there is only one person left in the universe to do it—God! And as “excruciating” as it is, they must either blame God for the origin of evil, or else they must give up their view of free will as doing what one desires according to one’s nature or God’s giving of those desires.

WHO MADE ME DO IT?

If neither the devil nor God made me do it, then who did? The biblical answer is that I did. That is, the “I” or “self” is the cause of evil. How? By means of the good power of free choice that God gave me.

Doesn’t every event have a cause?

Strong Calvinists object to this reasoning, claiming that every event has a cause—even our actions. And to claim that God did not cause our actions would mean that there is an effect without a cause—which is absurd. In response to this reasoning, several things should be noted.

First, every event does have a cause. But not every cause has a cause, as even the strong Calvinists agree. Every painting has a painter, but every painter is not painted. Further, if every cause had a cause, then God could not be the first Uncaused Cause that He is. Hence, it is even more absurd to ask: “Who made God?” God is the Unmade Maker. And it is absurd to ask, “Who made the Unmade?” No one made the Unmade; He is simply unmade.

Pursuing the question any further is like insisting that there must be an answer to the question “Who is the bachelor’s wife?” Bachelors do not have wives, and the Uncaused Being does not have a cause. Likewise, if the creature, by means of the good power of free choice, is the first cause of evil, then no cause of this evil action should be sought other than the person who caused it.

Second, the extreme Calvinist’s objection wrongly assumes that either an evil action must be caused by some other person or thing or else it is not caused at all since, the thinking goes, every event is either caused or uncaused, and there allegedly are no other logical alternatives. Neither the extreme nor moderate Calvinist (or even Arminian) believes that evil actions have no cause for at least two basic reasons. For one, it is a violation of this fundamental rule of reason: Every effect has a cause. Even the renowned skeptic David Hume denied that he ever asserted such an “absurd” thing
that things arise without a cause.

What is more, if evil actions have no cause, then no one can be held responsible for them. But both good moral reason and Scripture inform us that free creatures are held morally responsible for their choices. Lucifer was condemned to eternal separation from God for his rebellion against God (Rev.20:10; 1 Tim. 3:6), as were the angels who fell with him (Rev. 12:4, 12; Jude 6-7). Likewise, Adam and Eve were condemned for their actions (Gen. 3:1-19; Rom. 5:12).

However, if our actions are not uncaused, then is not the extreme Calvinist’s view correct that they must be caused by another? Not at all. For this perspective overlooks one very important alternative, namely, that they were caused by ourselves. True, every action is either uncaused or caused. This exhausts the logical possibilities. But it does not follow that every action is either uncaused by anyone or caused by someone else. It may have been caused by me, i.e., by my Self. There are three possibilities: My actions are (1) uncaused; (2) caused by someone (or something) else; or (3) caused by my Self. And there are many reasons to support the last view.

WHO CAUSED ME TO DO IT?

Again, extreme Calvinists object that a self-caused action is a contradiction in terms. According to this line of thought, nothing can cause itself. We cannot, for example, lift ourselves by our own bootstraps. A cause is always prior to its effect (in being, if not in time). But we cannot be prior to ourselves. Thus, it would seem to follow that a self-caused action is impossible, being rationally absurd.

Here again, extreme Calvinism exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding. A self-caused being Is impossible for the reason they give, but this is not true of a self-caused action. It is true that we cannot exist before we exist or be before we have being. But we can and must be before we can do. That is, we must exist before we can act.

Therefore, self-caused actions are not impossible. If they were, then even God, who cannot do what is impossible (cf. Heb. 6:18), would not have been able to create the world. For there was no one or nothing else to cause the world to exist before it existed, except God. If the act of Creation was not self-caused by God, then it could not have been created, since He, the Uncaused Cause, is the only one who could have performed it.

Likewise, if self-caused actions are not possible, then there is no explanation for Lucifer’s sin. For again, a sinless God could not have caused Lucifer to sin (James 1:13). And since Lucifer was the first one to sin, then his action must have been self-caused or else he would never have been able to sin. It follows that self-caused actions are possible. Even moderate Calvinists, like W. G. T. Shedd, admit this, saying, “A positive act of angelic self-determination is requisite. . . . Nothing but the spontaneity of will can produce the sin; and God does not work in the will to cause evil spontaneity” (Dogmatic Theology, 1.420).

Perhaps the reason it seems to some that self-caused actions are not possible is the term “selfcaused” itself. It might be better understood were we to speak of our actions as “caused by myself” (as opposed to “caused by another”). Or, better yet, actions caused by my Self (that is, by me, myself, or I). Actions do not cause themselves, but a self can cause an action. Speaking this way would eliminate the ambiguity of language that gives rise to the false belief that a self-caused action is impossible.

WHY DID I DO IT?

But why do I do what I do? Don’t my background, training, and environment affect what I do? Yes, they do, but they do not force me to do it. They affect my actions, but they do not effect (i.e., cause) them. They influence but do not control my actions. That I still have the power to make free moral choices is true for several reasons.

First, there is a difference between inherited physical characteristics (like brown eyes), over which I have no control, and  inherited spiritual tendencies (like lust), over which I ought to have control. We cannot avoid the basic size, color, talents, or ethnic group from which we have come. But we do have a choice as to whether to follow spiritual impulses we may have inherited, like impatience, anger, pride, or sexual impurity. None of these tendencies excuses evil actions that may follow from them; for instance, physical abuse, murder, or sexual perversion.

We may feel the impulse to strike back at someone who has said something nasty about us, but we can choose not to act on this impulse. Morally speaking, “irresistible urges” are urges that have not been resisted. People have died for lack of water and food, but no one has ever been known to die for lack of sex, alcohol, or other drugs to fulfill his cravings! We have a free choice in all these areas.

Second, there is a difference between moral and nonmoral (amoral) choices. Our preferences for color are nonmoral and largely determined. But a choice to be racist based on the color of one’s or another’s skin is not nonmoral, nor is it an act we could not avoid performing.

Finally, those who point out that all actions have a reason and that reason determines what we do often fail to properly distinguish a purpose from a cause. The purpose is why I act. The cause is what produces the act. A purpose is a final cause (that for which we act), but a cause is an  efficient cause (that by which we act) . No end or goal of an act produces a human free act. It is simply the purpose for which we choose to act. If we choose to cheat or steal, we do so freely, even though greed may have been the purpose for doing so. Moral actions spring from our free choices, no matter what the purposes for them may have been.

HOW CAN AN EVIL NATURE CHOOSE GOOD?

Extreme Calvinists, following Jonathan Edwards, object that will necessarily follows nature. This basic argument states that what is good by nature cannot will evil, and what is evil by nature cannot will good. Unless God gives evil men the desire to will good, they cannot will good any more than dead persons can raise themselves back to life. Following the “later” Augustine, before the Fall, Adam was able to sin or not to sin; after the Fall, he was able to sin but unable not to sin; after regeneration man is able to sin or not to sin (like Adam before the Fall); and in heaven man will be both able not to sin and not able to sin.

In response, it should be observed that this is contrary to Augustine’s own earlier position that we are born with a propensity but not a necessity to sin. It makes sin unavoidable, rather than inevitable. That is, it is inevitable that we will sin, but it is not inevitable that we must sin. Even though we are depraved and by nature bent toward sin, nonetheless, each sin is freely chosen. In addition, there are several serious problems with this position.

First of all, it is self-contradictory, for it holds two logically opposite premises: (1) What is good by nature cannot will evil (since will follows nature); (2) Yet Lucifer and Adam, who were good by nature, willed evil.

Second, it logically removes all responsibility for evil actions by evil (unregenerated) creatures, since they have no real choice in the evil they do. They can’t help but do what comes naturally.

Third, it confuses desire and decision. That evil men naturally desire to sin does not mean they must decide to sin. Both Scripture and experience inform us that there is a difference. Paul writes, “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do” (Rom. 7:15).17 Personal experience reveals that we sometimes act contrary to our strongest desire, such as to retaliate or to shirk responsibility.

Fourth, this view is a form of determinism. It believes that our moral actions are determined (caused) by another, rather than self-determined (caused) by ourselves.

Fifth, if what is evil can’t will good, and if what is good can’t will evil, then why do Christians who have been given good natures still choose to sin?

Many extreme Calvinists attempt to avoid this charge by redefining determinism. One does so by suggesting, “Determinism means that we are forced or coerced to do things by external force.” This is the fallacy of special pleading. This particular reasoning admits that there is an internal determination but denies that it should be called “determinism” because there was no external determination. Yet a rose by any other name is still a rose. The bottom line is, they believe that irresistible forces were exerted upon free creatures in order to get them to do what God wanted them to do. With the exception of the later Augustine there was no major church father up to the Reformation who held this view.

FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE, WHOSE FAULT IS IT?

The unpleasant truth is that even though I have an inherited sin nature (Eph. 2:3), I have no one to blame but myself (i.e., my Self) for my personal moral actions. This is clear for many reasons.

Responsibility and the ability to respond

Both extreme and moderate Calvinists (and Arminians) agree that God holds free creatures morally responsible for their free choices. Indeed, the Bible is filled with references supporting this conclusion. This is true of Lucifer (1 Tim. 3:6), other angels who fell (Jude 6-7), Adam and Eve (1 Tim. 2:14), and of all human beings since the Fall (Rom. 3:19).

However, sound reason demands that there is no responsibility where there is no ability to respond. It is not rational to hold someone responsible when they could not have responded. And God is not irrational. His omniscience means God is the most rational Being in the universe. Therefore, reason also demands that all moral creatures are morally free; that is, they have the ability to respond one way or another. Whatever evil we do and are responsible for, we could have responded otherwise. When we did evil we could have not done it. This is what is meant by a “self-caused” action. It is an action that was not caused by another but by one’s Self. It is an action that one could have avoided.

Reason also demands that all moral creatures are morally free; that is, they have the ability to respond one way or another. Whatever evil we do and are responsible for, we could have responded otherwise. When we did evil we could have not done it. This is what is meant by a “self-caused” action. It is an action that was not caused by another but by one’s Self. It is an action that one could have avoided.

Ought implies can

Not only are evil moral actions ones that could have been otherwise, but they should have been otherwise. There is agreement by both the extreme Calvinists and their opponents that a moral duty is something we ought to do. Moral laws are prescriptive, not merely descriptive. They prescribe actions that we should (or should not) do.

But here, too, logic seems to insist that such moral obligations imply that we have self-determining moral free choice. For ought implies can. That is, what we ought to do implies that we can do it. Otherwise, we have to assume that the Moral Lawgiver is prescribing the irrational, commanding that we do what is literally impossible for us to do. Good reason appears to insist that if God demands it, then we can do it. Moral obligation implies moral freedom.

Logic seems to insist that such moral obligations imply that we have self-determining moral free choice. For ought implies can. That is, what we ought to do implies that we can do it. Otherwise, we have to assume that the Moral Lawgiver is prescribing the irrational, commanding that we do what is literally impossible for us to do. Good reason appears to insist that if God demands it, then we can do it. Moral obligation implies moral freedom.

The objection brought against this conclusion by the strong Calvinist calls for comment. For he insists that God often commands us to do the impossible and yet still holds us responsible for not doing it. For example, God commanded: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). Yet we all are painfully aware that in our fallen state this is impossible. In fact, we are commanded never to sin, and yet as depraved beings we cannot avoid sinning. For we are sinners “by nature” (Eph. 2:3).

Two comments should be made, then, in response to this objection. First of all, when we say “ought implies can” we do not mean that whatever we ought to do we can do by our own strength. This would be contrary to the clear teaching of Christ that “without me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). We can’t do anything but, as Paul said, “ [We] can do all things through Christ who strengthens [us]” (Phil. 4:13 NKJV). Sure, we are told to “work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12), but only because “it is God who works in [us] to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Phil. 2:13). Hence, “ought implies can” only in the sense that we can by the grace of God. Without His grace we cannot overcome sin.

Second, further evidence that we can do what we ought to do, by God’s grace is found in a familiar passage: “No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it” (1 Cor. 10:13). It couldn’t be clearer: God never prescribes anything without providing the way to accomplish it. If we are morally bound, then we must be morally free.

Reward and punishment

Another evidence that we have morally self-determining free choice is that Scripture and common moral wisdom both inform us that praise and blame make no real sense unless those praised or blamed were free to do otherwise. Why eulogize Mother Teresa and vilify Hitler, if they could not help doing what they did? Why blame Adolf Eichmann and praise Martin Luther King, if they had no free choice in the matter? Yet they did, and we do. The Bible says plainly that God “ ‘will give to each person according to what he has done’ ” (Rom. 2:6).

Scripture and common moral wisdom both inform us that praise and blame make no real sense unless those praised or blamed were free to do otherwise. Why eulogize Mother Teresa and vilify Hitler, if they could not help doing what they did? Why blame Adolf Eichmann and praise Martin Luther King, if they had no free choice in the matter?

An undeniable fact

Fatalists and determinists have attempted in vain to deny human freedom—and this they have done without anyone forcing them to do so! The fact is that freedom is undeniable. For if everything were determined, then so would the determinists be determined to believe that we are not free. But determinists believe that determinism is true and non-determinism is false. Further, they believe that all non-determinists ought to change their view and become determinists. Yet this implies that nondeterminists are free to change their view—which is contrary to determinism. Thus, it only follows that determinism is false, since it is contradictory to its own claim. (Of course, this is not to deny that all free acts are determined by God in the sense that He foreknew—for sure—that we would freely perform them.)

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES?

From beginning to end the Bible affirms, both implicitly and explicitly, that human beings have free choice. This is true both prior to and after the Fall of Adam, although free will is definitely affected by sin and severely limited in what it can do.

Free will before the Fall

The power of free choice is part of mankind being created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). Adam and Eve were commanded: (1) to multiply their kind (1:28) and (2) to refrain from eating the forbidden fruit (2:16-17). Both of these responsibilities imply the ability to respond. As noted above, the fact that they ought to obey these commands implied that they could obey them.

The text narrates their choice in the latter, saying; “She took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it” (Gen. 3:6). God’s condemnation of them makes it evident that they were free. He asked, “ ‘Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?’ ”(Gen. 3:11). “God said to the woman, ‘What is this you have done?’ The woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate’ ” (3:13).

The New Testament references to Adam’s act make it plain that he made a free choice for which he was responsible. Romans 5 calls it “sin” (v. 16), an “offense” (v. 15 NKJV), and “disobedience” (v. 19). 1 Timothy 2 refers to Adam’s act as a “transgression” (v. 14 NKJV). All these descriptions imply that it was a morally free and culpable act.

Free will after the Fall

Even after Adam sinned and became spiritually “dead”25 (Gen. 2:17; cf. Eph. 2:1) and a sinner “by nature” (Eph. 2:3), he was not so completely depraved that he could neither hear the voice of God nor make a free response. For “the LORD God called to the man, ‘Where are you?’ He answered, ‘I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid’ ” (Gen. 3:9-10). God’s image in Adam was effaced by the Fall but not erased. It was marred but not destroyed. Indeed, the image of God (which includes free will) is still in human beings after the Fall. This is why murder (Gen. 9:6) and even cursing (James 3:9) of other people are sins, ”for in the image of God has God made man” (Gen. 9:6).

God’s image in Adam was effaced by the Fall but not erased. It was marred but not destroyed. Indeed, the image of God (which includes free will) is still in human beings after the Fall. This is why murder (Gen. 9:6) and even cursing (James 3:9) of other people are sins, ”for in the image of God has God made man” (Gen. 9:6).

Fallen descendants of Adam have free will

Both Scripture and good reason inform us that depraved human beings have the power of free choice. The Bible says fallen man is ignorant, depraved, and a slave of sin. But all these conditions involve a choice. Peter speaks of depraved ignorance as being ignorant “willingly” (2 Peter 3:5 KJV). Paul declared that unsaved people have “clearly seen” and “understood” the truth but they deliberately “suppress” it (or “hold it down” [Rom. 1:18-19]). As a result, they are “without excuse.” Even our enslavement to sin is a result of a free choice. He adds, “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey…” (Rom. 6:16). Even spiritual blindness is a result of the choice not to believe. For “The god of this age has blinded the minds of un believers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel …” (2 Cor. 4:4). Even those under the power of Satan are there by a free act of “disobedience” (Eph. 2:2).

Both Scripture and good reason inform us that depraved human beings have the power of free choice. The Bible says fallen man is ignorant, depraved, and a slave of sin. But all these conditions involve a choice.

With respect to initiating or attaining their own salvation, both Luther and Calvin were right in asserting that fallen humans are not free with regard to “things above,” that is, achieving their own salvation. However, contrary to strong Calvinism, in regard to the freedom of accepting God’s gift of salvation the Bible is clear: Fallen beings are free. Thus, the free choice of fallen human beings is both “horizontal” (social) with respect to things in this world and “vertical” (spiritual). The former is evident in the choice of a mate: “But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39). This is a freedom described as having “no constraint,” and where one has “authority over his own will,” and where one “has decided this in his own heart” (1 Cor. 7:37 NASB). This same horizontal freedom is described in an act of giving “entirely on their own” (2 Cor. 8:3) as well as “spontaneous and not forced” (Philem. 14). And the vertical ability to believe is everywhere implied in the Gospel call (cf. Acts 16:31; 17:30). Freedom for God’s creatures, as it is for the God in whose image they are made, is described in James 1:18: “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth …” (KJV).

In regard to the freedom of accepting God’s gift of salvation the Bible is clear: Fallen beings are free. Thus, the free choice of fallen human beings is both “horizontal” (social) with respect to things in this world and “vertical” (spiritual).

Peter describes what is meant by free choice when he says it is “ not under compulsion” but “voluntary ” (1 Peter 5:2 NASB). Paul depicts the nature of freedom as an act where one “purposed in his heart” and did not act under “compulsion” (2 Cor. 9:7 NASB). In Philemon, he says it is an act of “consent” and “should not be . . . by compulsion” but “of your own free will” (NASB). Calvinist W. G. T. Shedd summed it up directly when he wrote:

Though actuated by the Holy Spirit, the holy will is nevertheless a self-moving and uncompelled faculty. Holy inclination is the will’s right self-motion because of the Divine actuation, or “God’s working in the will to will.” Sinful inclination is the will’s wrong selfmotion without Divine actuation. But the motion in both instances is that of mind, not of matter; spiritual, not mechanical; free, not forced motion (Dogmatic Theology, 3.300).

Even unsaved people have a free choice as to either receiving or rejecting God’s gift of salvation (Rom. 6:23). Jesus spoke of those who rejected Him, saying, “ ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem … how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing’ ” (Matt. 23:37). And John affirmed that “ all who received him [Christ], to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12). Indeed, He desires that all unsaved people will change their minds (repent). For “He [God] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). That is, to a change of mind.

Like the alternatives of life and death Moses gave to Israel, God says, “Choose life” (Deut. 30:19). Or, as Joshua said to his people, “ ‘Choose you this day whom ye will serve’ ” (Josh. 24:15 KJV). Or, as God said to David, “This is what the LORD says: ‘I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you’ ” (2 Sam. 24:12). Morally and spiritually responsible alternatives are set before human beings by God, leaving the choice and responsibility to them. Jesus said to the unbelievers of His day, “If you do not believe that I am, you will indeed die in your sins” (John 8:24). Over and over He declared belief to be something they were to do: “ ‘We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God’ ” (John 6:69); “ ‘Who is he, sir? … Tell me so that I may believe in him’ ” (John 9:36); “Then the man said, ‘Lord, I believe,’ and he worshiped him” (John 9:38); “Jesus answered, ‘I did tell you, but you do not believe’ ” (John 10:25). This is why Jesus said, “ ‘Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son’ ” (John 3:18). Plainly, then, belief is our responsibility and is rooted in our ability to respond. This view has overwhelming support by virtually all the great church fathers up to the sixteenth century.

Can everyone believe?

Contrary to the extreme Calvinist’s view, faith is not a gift that God offers only to some. All are responsible to believe and “whoever” decides to believe can believe (cf.John 3:16). Jesus says, “ ‘Whosoever believeth in him shall have everlasting life’ ” (John 3:16 KJV). He adds, “ ‘Whoever believes in him is not condemned’ ” (v. 18). And, “ ‘Whoever comes to me I will never drive away’ ” (John 6:37). Revelation 22:17 also states: “ Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.”

If everyone can believe, why then did Jesus assert of some “ ‘For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: ”He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them” ’ ” (John 12:39-40)?

The answer is found in the context: (1) Belief was obviously their responsibility, since God held them responsible for not believing. Only two verses earlier we read, “Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him” (John 12:37); (2) Jesus had been speaking to hardhearted Jews who had seen many indisputable miracles (including the resurrection of Lazarus [John 11]) and who had been called upon many times to believe before this point (cf. John 8:26), which reveals that they were able to do so; and (3) It was their own stubborn unbelief that brought on their blindness. Jesus had said to them, “ ‘I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am, you will indeed die in your sins’ ” (John 8:24). Thus, it was chosen and avoidable blindness.

Can anyone believe unaided by God’s grace?

While all truly free acts are self-determined and could have been otherwise, nonetheless, it is also true that no free human act can move toward God or do any spiritual good without the aid of His grace. This is evident from the following Scriptures:

• But who am I, and who are my people, that we should be able to give as generously as this? Everything comes from you, and we have given you only what comes from your hand. (1 Chron. 29:14)

• “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44).

• “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).

• [Jesus prayed:] “Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one” (John 17:11).

• “While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled” (John 17:12).

• But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. (1 Cor. 15:10)

• Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. (2 Cor. 3:5)

• But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect inweakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. (2 Cor. 12:9)

• Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (Phil. 2:12-13)

• I can do everything through him who gives me strength. (Phil. 4:13)

While all truly free acts are self-determined and could have been otherwise, nonetheless, it is also true that no free human act can move toward God or do any spiritual good without the aid of His grace.

W. G. T. Shedd, who as stated previously is a moderate Calvinist, wraps it up this way:

If the sinner voluntarily rejects the offered mercy of God, he is culpable for so doing, and is therefore amenable to the charge of culpability and responsible before the divine tribunal because of it…. Man is responsible for sin because he is both the author and the actor of it; but he is not responsible for holiness, because he is only the actor and not the author…. “The sinner is free in accepting or rejecting the invitations of the gospel.” If he accepts them, he does so freely under the actuation of the Holy Spirit. If he rejects them, he does so freely without this actuation and solely by his own self-determination (Dogmatic Theology, 3.298-299).

EITHER/OR OR BOTH/AND?

Sovereignty and free will. Is it one or the other, or is it both one and the other? The Bible says both. God is sovereign over all things, including human events and free choices. Nothing catches God by surprise, and nothing is outside His control. On the other hand, human beings, even in their fallen state, have the God-given power of free choice. This applies to many earthly things here “below” as it does to heavenly things from “above,” namely, with regard to receiving God’s gift of salvation.

The mystery of the relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will has challenged the greatest Christian thinkers down through the centuries. Unfortunately, the extreme Calvinists have sacrificed human responsibility in order to preserve divine sovereignty. Likewise, as we shall see later, extreme Arminians have sacrificed God’s sovereignty in order to hold on to man’s free will. We believe that both of these alternatives are wrong and lead to inordinately extreme actions.

Sovereignty and free will. Is it one or the other, or is it both one and the other? The Bible says both. God is sovereign over all things, including human events and free choices. Nothing catches God by surprise, and nothing is outside His control. On the other hand, human beings, even in their fallen state, have the God-given power of free choice. This applies to many earthly things here “below” as it does to heavenly things from “above,” namely, with regard to receiving God’s gift of salvation.

[This article is re-posted from Free Will Revisited: Fresh Perspective on an Ancient Debate written by Robert Picirilli at National Association of Free Will Baptists]

A biblical concept of free will is important for many reasons. It does not exalt humanity too highly; no more highly than God Himself lifted them in creating them to bear His own image. Nor does it demean humankind too much; no more than humanity demeaned itself in wicked disobedience against God, thus bearing the consequences of that rebellion in a wholly corrupted and sinful nature that leaves them dead and deaf to spiritual truth, blind and bound in sin. Is it possible that such beings truly have a will free to make choices between alternative courses of action?

To answer that question, I must begin by explaining what I mean by freedom of the will. Free will is not a thing, not a distinct substance or essence that makes up part of a human being. To say a person has free will is not the same as saying a person has a body, spirit, or soul. It is clear, however, that every person has a will. I assume the reader—any Christian reader, at least—agrees. The noun will is closely associated with, and its meaning involved with, other words like desire, purpose, intention, determination, and decision. To say a person has a will is to say he experiences purpose, intends things, and makes decisions.

Machines do not do that sort of thing, regardless how sophisticated they are. It is only a figure of speech when we say something such as, “My computer thinks I want the next word after a period to be capitalized.” Computers, as marvelous as they are, do not “think” at all; they only do what they are programmed to do by people who do think. Machines do not make decisions; they experience no purposes achieved or thwarted. Only human beings, only essences conscious of themselves as selves, function in such ways. Only such an essence can will. (And yes, will works as well as a verb as a noun.)

To describe the human will as free is to say something about the way it functions. In one sense, to speak of the will as free is to say something redundant. Be careful how you deny free will; you may very well deny the will itself. To be sure, when we use the term free will, we intend to convey the notion that choices are involved. But that notion is already inherent in the unmodified word. The dictionary defines will as “the power of making a reasoned choice or decision.” To say persons exercise their wills is little more than saying they choose.

Any such choice or decision is volitional, an act or exercise of the will. Jonathan Edwards defines the will—not free will, as such—as “that by which the mind chooses anything,” a “faculty or power or principle of mind by which it is capable of choosing,” “an act of the will is the same as an act of choosing.” He goes on to say a will can choose without being free. I am more inclined to think that without freedom there is no choosing, so a will, by definition, is free.

I am not pretending this matter of free will is that simple, but this ought to be the starting point for exploring the issue. Before we argue about depravity, about whether fallen human beings still possess free wills—or wills at all—we had better say clearly what we mean to affirm or deny in the discussion of free will. And I offer, now, a basic definition of free will I think can be used as a starting point for further discussion: free will is a way of saying a person is capable of making decisions, that a person can choose between two (or more) alternatives when he or she has obtained (by whatever means) the degree of understanding of those alternatives required to choose between them.

I intend for this definition to involve what has been traditionally stated as, “the power of alternative choice,” also sometimes called “libertarian freedom.” This means the choice or decision is one that really could go either way; that a person is neither compelled by some force outside nor shut up from within by previous condition or experience, so that only one alternative can actually be chosen. In other words, possessing a free will—or a will, for that matter, as I would contend—rules out determinism and compatibilism.

Both are forms of determinism, given that compatibilism by definition includes the idea that determinism and freedom are compatible. Another name for compatibilism is “soft determinism,” after all. My definition, then, is intentionally set against all forms of determinism and in support of self-determinism. It is the very nature of a self to exercise will.

I also intend my definition to allow that making choices requires some level of understanding as to what the choices are. This means more than one thing. One is that the choices we call free are not merely random but are rational or reasoned. There is no will apart from the mind of a self. The will is perhaps an aspect or attribute of a mind—but I do not intend, here, a technical description of personhood, nor do I intend to qualify a real choice as requiring understanding of everything involved in the choice, like all the reasons for and against it, or all the consequences. But the one who chooses between two (or more) alternatives must at least perceive what those choices are, and that he can choose between them.

I also make a distinction between the capacity of the will and the circumstances within which the will is able to operate freely. First, we define free will, and then we can talk about how depravity affects it and where grace must intervene. Each of those issues can be defined in its own right, and confusion can be avoided.

When I say this, I am reflecting on the fact that the Calvinistic wing of Reformed theology denies that fallen humanity possesses free will, at least if free will means the ability to choose between alternatives. I would suggest that many people—to some degree with justification—take this to mean the same thing as a naturalistic mechanism or fatalism. It matters little to people whether determinism is a result of the blind cause-effect laws of a purposeless cosmos, or of the deliberate intention of an all-controlling God. Determinism from either source makes no allowance for human freedom, since human choices determine nothing.

I regard it as obvious that the ability of a person to will is part of what it means to bear the image of God, and that fallen humanity still bears that image, as 1 Corinthians 11:7 indicates. I offer, then, that the freedom of the human will is constitutional. One’s will is always present as an aspect of human nature, a way a person functions. Depravity does not change the fact that a person has a will, or that it is constitutionally free to make choices. To be sure, the circumstances in which the will functions bear on whether the person can choose this or that alternative, and that is where depravity gets involved. A person in prison, for example, has not lost the capacity to walk the streets unchained, but his circumstances curtail his ability to exercise that capacity at the time.

Just so, depravity limits our choices without removing the constitutional capacity to choose. How, then, can a fallen person ever be free to choose for God? This requires a deeper study of free will, depravity, and grace. For now, it is enough to say—and this is the point of the latter part of my definition, above—such a person must obtain a level of understanding of the choices available.

To believe in the freedom of the will as I have defined it, then, applies to choices of any sort. These choices include everyday decisions that seem entirely innocent and unimportant, like which socks to wear today (almost, but not quite, inconsequential), or the restaurant to which you will take your wife for your anniversary celebration (very consequential). They also include much more important moral choices: whether to lie to avoid a predicament, or whether to retaliate when wronged. And they include the ultimate choice that leads to eternal life: putting faith in Jesus Christ. But in all of these, there must at least be some understanding of the available choices to be free to choose in the circumstances.

[This post is taken and adapted from the articles written by Bob Wilkin in Grace Evangelical Society / FaithAlone.Org and by Charlie Bing in GraceLife.Org]

“Now God has us where he wants us, with all the time in this world and the next to shower grace and kindness upon us in Christ Jesus. Saving is all his idea, and all his work. All we do is trust him enough to let him do it. It’s God’s gift from start to finish! We don’t play the major role. If we did, we’d probably go around bragging that we’d done the whole thing! No, we neither make nor save ourselves. God does both the making and saving. He creates each of us by Christ Jesus to join him in the work he does, the good work he has gotten ready for us to do, work we had better be doing.” [Ephesians 2:8-10, The Message (MSG)]

What do we mean when we say that our spiritual salvation is made possible only by divine grace? Many people believe that we can be saved when we have faith plus something else (e.g. faith + commitment, faith + obedience, faith + lifestyle change, faith + good works, faith + perseverance, etc.). But the Bible teaches that responding to the “call to believe” in Jesus Christ through faith alone is all that is necessary to receive eternal life. This basic belief in the Son of God, this simple faith even that of a child, brings assurance of “entering” the kingdom of God.

Theologically speaking, ‘salvation by grace’ means that (1) everlasting life is a free gift (which the Lord Jesus fully paid for by His death on the cross for our sins) which is received by faith alone in Christ alone, apart from works of any kind; (2) that assurance of one’s eternal destiny is based solely on believing Jesus’ promise to the believer and not at all on our works or on our feelings; and (3) that all people, believers and unbelievers, are accountable for their works, receive recompense for what they do in this life, and will be judged at the end of the age to determine degrees of reward or degrees of punishment in the life to come, but not to determine their eternal destinies.

Salvation by grace is through faith alone.

Not faith plus works. Not faith that works.

It is problematic to believe that perseverance in good works is required to make it to heaven. Some people say if a believer fails to persevere in good works, then he loses eternal life and he goes to hell. Others say if a believer fails to persevere in good works, then he proves he wasn’t a “true believer” in the first place and he goes to hell.

The problem with these perspectives is they all end in doubt. They can never be sure of their salvation.

The truth is that, simply by believing in Jesus, a person has eternal life. This view advocates for spiritual salvation that is by faith alone, in Christ alone, nothing added, and no strings attached.

Before we dive into this debatable issue, let us try to clarify some terms.

What is “salvation”?

Salvation is an act of God’s grace. Grace is the work of God in the human soul as the Holy Spirit reveals Christ through the preaching of the gospel. This work of grace tends to soften the heart of the one receiving it, so the person becomes more open to the gospel. This softening change causes us to be more favorably disposed – grateful and responsive – to the Gracious One (Romans 2:4; 2 Corinthians 5:14; Luke 7:47).

The moment a person trusts Christ for salvation, he experiences spiritual rebirth (regeneration). This inner experience of being united with Christ which declares the believer forgiven from all sins (justification) eventually results in the outward manifestation of living for Christ (sanctification). Hence, the gracious and loving act of God’s salvation tends to produce good works in the lives of those who have received salvation (Titus 1:11-13).

What is “grace”?

God is totally self-sufficient, uncaused Cause of all things. He created all, and He sustains all. We have nothing we did not receive from Him, and we cannot give to Him what He has not already given to us (Acts 17:25; Romans 11:36; 1 Chronicles 29:14). Thus, eternal life cannot be of our works. Salvation does not originate with us (John 1:13; Romans 9:16) but with Him who is the Source of all that has been created. Without grace initiating and executing the plan of salvation, no one would ever be saved. Our eternal life finds its origin only in grace (sola gratia).

What is “faith”?

The meaning of faith (belief) or “to believe” (pisteuo) means “to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to a person or thing)…“to entrust,” “to trust” (Strong, NSECB), “to think to be true,” to be persuaded of,” “to place confidence in” (Thayer, GELNT), “to be convinced of something,” “to be dependent on” (Arndt and Gingrich), and “to rely on” (Kittel, TDNT). Thus, faith implies trust and hope (confidence) in its object.

Faith is the only condition for receiving God’s gracious gift of salvation (Romans 3:25; 4:5; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:3-7). One of the central teachings of the Protestant Reformation is “justification by faith alone” (sola fide). Faith is the means by which we receive salvation from God. Salvation is the gift offered to everyone, and it is received through a response of faith. All unregenerate sinners are invited to receive the free gift of salvation with the assurance that whosoever believes (assisted by divine grace) will be saved.[1] Saving faith involves dependence only on God for our salvation, acknowledging that He and He alone is the Source and Sufficiency of eternal life.

True faith is not a matter of quantity but quality. Even the smallest faith matters to God (Matthew 17:20). It is not only the nature of faith but the object of faith that makes it effective.

What is “repentance”?

The root meaning of “to repent” (metanoeo) is “to think differently” or “to reconsider” or “to change one’s mind,” i.e. “to feel sorry” or “to feel remorse” (Thayer; GELNT; Arndt and Gingrich; Vine; TDNT). Thus, repentance involves a change of mind and heart (which may lead to a change of life).

There is an on-going debate among different theologians as to the role of repentance in our spiritual salvation.

Zane Hodges explains that repentance (“to feel remorse”) is in no way necessary to becoming saved. Only faith (without repentance) is required for salvation, and the role of repentance in the believer’s life is after he is saved from the penalty of his sins (sanctification). The scriptural references to repentance are either speaking of repentance from temporal and earthly matters (having nothing to do with salvation) or with regard to what a believer needs to do after justification.

Earl Radmacher argues that repentance (“to change one’s mind”) is not necessary for salvation, but repentance may precede salvation by preparation. We are saved by faith alone but the precondition of saving faith is repentance from sin. While such repentance does not deliver salvation, it does set the stage for salvation. One must leave sin (in repentance) before he can cleave (by faith) to Christ; no one can accept Christ unless he is willing to relinquish sin. Repentance does not save, but it clears the path to being saved.

John McArthur teaches that repentance of sin (“to change one’s life”) is a requirement for salvation. Mere faith without true repentance is not enough to save anyone. All authentic faith has repentance as a necessary precondition to salvation. Saving faith automatically results to obedience and life change.

Charles Ryrie insists that repentance (“to change one’s mind”) and faith are two facets of one saving act. Repentance is a change of one’s mind, not a change in one’s life. With this definition of ‘repentance as a change of mind about Christ’, it may be possible to see repentance as a synonym for faith. However, repentance also implies a willingness to obey Christ’s commands and willingness to repent of sin. While willingness and obedience are not required for salvation, nonetheless, the very nature of saving faith and true repentance is such that it naturally (not automatically) tends to lead people to become willing and obedient.

Let us try to unpack this theological idea about salvation by grace.

Salvation by grace is absolutely free. The word grace (charis) essentially means a free and undeserved gift. To say that grace is totally free does not mean it is free to the giver, who in this case is God, but it means that no payment or merit is required from those to whom it is offered, which would be all unsaved and undeserving sinners. Romans 3:24 distinguishes between the free gift to the recipient and the cost to the Giver: “having been justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”

Salvation by grace can be received only through faith. Since we as sinners can do nothing to earn God’s grace, it has to be given as a gift which can only be received through faith. By faith (or believing, which is from the same Greek word) we mean the human response of accepting something as true and trustworthy. It is a conviction, an inner persuasion. This definition precludes any other conditions of works, performance, or merit (Rom. 4:4-5). Faith cannot be defined by obedience to Christian commands, baptism, surrender, commitment of one’s life to God, or turning from sins. These things can and should be the results of faith, but they are distinct from faith itself, otherwise grace ceases to be grace (Rom. 11:6). Ephesians 2:8 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, not by works . . .” Faith is a simple response, but that does not mean that it is an easy one.

Thus, turning from sins, commitment, obedience, and perseverance are not “faith” and thus aren’t conditions of eternal life. Those are all types of works. Works have their proper place in the Christian life, but only after you have believed in Jesus.

Perseverance in faith and good works is not a condition of eternal life.

It is possible to believe in Christ and yet sin. Indeed, all Christians sin daily (Rom 3:23; 1 John 1:8, 10). The Scriptures show that failure, even major failure, is possible in the Christian life. First Corinthians 3:3 shows that if you look at the works of some believers, you can’t distinguish them from the works of unbelievers. First Corinthians 5:1-5 shows that the works of some believers are actually worse than the works of unbelievers. Luke 19:20-26, Jas 5:19-20, and 2 Tim 2:11-13 show that some believers do not persevere.

Commitment and obedience and perseverance are all necessary to please God and to have fullness of life, but they are not conditions of everlasting life. Belief in Jesus is the sole condition in order to be saved.

Salvation by grace means the object of faith is the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith must always have an object, because faith itself is not the effective cause of our salvation (we are saved “by grace”), but the instrumental means through which we are saved (“through faith”). The One who actually saves us is the Lord Jesus Christ. But it is not any Jesus, it is Jesus as the Son of God who died for our sins and rose again and guarantees eternal salvation to all who believe in Him.

Salvation by grace is based on the finished work of Christ. Grace is free because Jesus Christ did all the work on our behalf. His proclamation “It is finished” on the cross means that He made the final and full payment for the penalty for our sins. It also means we cannot add anything to what Jesus accomplished. We cannot do anything to earn our salvation or to keep our salvation. Hence, there is eternal security for the believer.

Salvation by grace provides for assurance of salvation. Any system or belief that requires our performance cannot give assurance of salvation. Human performance is subjective, variable, unpredictable, and always imperfect. Faith must rest in Jesus Christ and His promise as revealed in the Word of God. The person and work of Christ and the Word of God are objective truths that cannot change. This is the only basis for the full assurance of salvation.

Believers are eternally secure and can be presently assured of it. We can have both “eternal security” and present “assurance of salvation”. Salvation is through faith, not through our faithfulness. Believers are saved even if they fail to remain faithful to God until the end. The ultimate proof that you are genuinely saved are the promises of God. The believer will be preserved by the grace of God. No saint will ever be lost (even if they die in a sinful state).

Salvation by grace distinguishes between salvation and discipleship. While some theological systems believe that all Christians are disciples, the condition for eternal salvation (believe) is distinct from the many conditions for discipleship (deny oneself, take up your cross, follow Christ, abide in His Word, love Christ more than your family, etc.). Since grace is absolutely free, it cannot demand these conditions or it ceases to be grace. To believe that our salvation is by grace is to believe that the commitments of discipleship should be the result of salvation, not the requirement. To make them conditions of salvation inserts works and human merit into the gospel of grace.

Salvation by grace means living the Christian life is also by grace through faith. Since we are saved by grace and kept saved by grace, we also grow by grace which is accessed through faith. Grace provides everything we don’t deserve and more for anything we need. Just as in salvation, the grace to grow is available to us through faith: “through whom [the Lord Jesus Christ] also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand. . .” (Rom. 5:2; compare Gal. 2:20).

Salvation by grace provides the best motivation for godly living. If salvation is by human performance, there is no assurance, and if there is no assurance, a motivation for good conduct easily becomes to prove we are saved or to avoid hell. Guilt, fear, and doubt can produce good conduct, but not necessarily godly conduct. Godly conduct includes the inner motivations of love and gratitude. The assurance of God’s grace and the finished work of Christ allow Christians to grow in an environment of freedom and unconditional love (Titus 2:11-12).

Salvation by grace holds that the Christian is accountable. The believer is set free from any demands of the law or works as a basis for eternal salvation. But Christians should live godly lives because: 1) We should be grateful for what God has done (Rom. 12:1-2); 2) God wants us to have good works (Eph. 2:10); 3) We have a new position in Christ (Rom. 6:1-14); 4) We have a new Master — Jesus (Rom. 6:15-23); and 5) We have a new power — the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:1-11). Because of these things, God will hold us accountable for the kind of lives we lead. God can discipline us in this life (Heb. 12:5-11) and we will face the future Judgment Seat of Christ where believers will give an account to God (Rom. 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:11-4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10). In this judgment, believers will be rewarded or denied rewards. To live in sin have consequences.

People who emphasize faith apart from works are sometimes accused of “antinomianism” (the belief that there are no moral laws God expects Christians to obey). But the grace of God is not a license to sin. The grace of God is a call to holiness. The mercy, love, and kindness of God lead us to godliness and repentance. The question for the believer is this: what will you do with the everlasting life that God has given you? Will you glorify Him with your life?

Salvation by grace commits us to an accurate interpretation of the Bible. Many have forced their theological systems on their interpretations instead of letting the Bible speak for itself. A literal and plain sense approach to interpreting the Bible considers God’s various ways of administering His plan for the world through the ages, and the proper contexts of any Bible passage. Our first commitment is not to a theological system, but to what the Bible says, even if some particulars cannot be reconciled easily to other teachings or traditional interpretations.

Conclusion

The theological perspective that our spiritual salvation happens only by divine grace begins with the plain and clear teaching of the Bible that grace is absolutely free. From this, the Bible’s teachings about salvation, faith, security, assurance, the Christian life, and discipleship are viewed consistent with the unconditional nature of grace. The free grace of God should motivate Christians to worship, serve, and live godly for the “God of all grace” (1 Peter 5:10) who “first loved us” (1 john 4:19).

The theology of salvation by grace is life-transforming.

First, by believing the Lord’s promise of life one gains everlasting life, which makes growth and fullness of life possible. There is no other way to be born again.

Second, as long as one believes the promise of life he remains sure of his eternal destiny. There is no other way to be certain of our eternal destiny.

Third, assurance produces love and gratitude, which are powerful motivators to live for God.

Fourth, knowing that our quality of life here and now depends on walking by faith is also highly motivating.

Fifth, knowing that one day the Lord will judge us and that the fullness of our eternal life forever will depend on the outcome of that judgment should move us daily to walk in the light of God’s Word.

Far from being something that pushes people to ungodliness, the theology of salvation by grace drives people to holiness.

SOURCES / REFERENCES:

• Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ

• Zane Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation

• Zane Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege: Faith and Works in Tension

• Robert Wilkin, Secure and Sure: Grasping the Promises of God

• Fred Chay and John P. Correia, The Faith That Saves: The Nature of Faith in the New Testament – An Exegetical and Theological Analysis on the Nature of New Testament Faith

• Lewis Sperry Chafer, Grace: The Glorious Theme of Spiritual Salvation in Christ

• Lewis Sperry Chafer, Salvation: God’s Marvelous Work of Grace

• Charles Bing, Simply by Grace: An Introduction to God’s Life-Changing Gift

• Fred Chay, David Anderson, Joseph Dillow, Ken Wilson, Paul Tanner, A Defense of Free Grace Theology: With Respect to Saving Faith, Perseverance, and Assurance

• David Anderson & James Reitman, Free Grace Soteriology

• J. B. Hixson, Rick Whitmire, et al., Freely by His Grace: Classical Grace Theology

• Matthew Correll, Only by His Grace: A Defense of Free Grace Theology

• Robert Wilkin, A Gospel of Doubt: The Legacy of John MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus