Been a long time coming...
It has been awhile since my last post… I wrote a letter some time back to a friend of mine and I decided to post it while new thoughts transverse the space between neurons and cyberspace. As always, comments are welcome.
Hey man. I had some thoughts after much thought on our BBQ dinner conversation. First let me say that I enjoyed it. The enjoyment is not because of conflicting points of view, but rather that you, being someone I look up to in the faith and consider a mentor, can hang with my rambling and push me (in an encouraging way, Eph 4:29) towards the deep things of God and His Word. Something that I have found humorous is that the people that God seems to graciously allow me to converse with (about hard things in a manner that sharpens both parties) are people who appear to never agree with me on a given issue. I find this quite interesting considering that I believe He is teaching me that which doesn’t agree. Please take the following with a grain of salt. I in no way claim to be 100% correct. Know that my theology is always is progress much like my sanctification. (Thanks be to God that our sanctification is not only progressive, but also positional.)
It seems that from our conversation the T and the U from the TULIP were agreeable, the I was the hot topic and the L and P were not discussed. However, I think that the P we would find agreeable (after all we are southern Baptists) and perhaps we would in turn would agree on the L after we concluded that the word “limited” does not negate the power of the cross, but rather address the actual result of it. (NOTE: I realized that the L is a much bigger issue between us than I first thought after the completion of my response) And thus, we as a team who desires to know the Word, we are left with I and there is no I in team. So let us continue the conversation (if you are willing) and change the I to an E, giving us TULEP instead of Tulip.
The question at hand is in reference to regeneration, “can we resist God?” It seems from our conversation that you view regeneration as active and sanctification as active. I see regeneration as passive on the sinner’s part and active on the saint’s part. I guess I’ll let that be the thesis of this electronic response.
I do not want you to think that we disagree on that fact that man resists God or imply that God forces us to believe against our will. Surely Israel in the Old Testament continually resisted God. And I think we agree that in our depravity we can and do resist God. A reformed author wrote, “The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted.” (Note from this point on in the one-sided response I would like to use the term effectual grace instead of irresistible grace. The reason being is that I wholeheartedly believe that Salvation is God’s work. The term irresistible or resistible for that matter as Edwards would say is “perfect nonsense.” The reason for the nonsense is that Edwards, and I hope to show that Paul, believed that “grace produces new life and will,” therefore, asking whether it is resistible or irresistible is tantamount to asking whether the will opposes the will.” The whole dispute is nonsense because it only says that man can do what man can do.
I realize at this point you are probably thinking, “Jeffrey my friend, you have already contradicted yourself by saying that ‘man resists God’ and yet you are continuing on with your thought process of effectual grace; therefore, because you have contradicted yourself, any more words are irrelevant.” I would say to you, we are dealing with a paradox and not a contradiction; we are dealing with specifics and not generalizations. Let us be careful with our words, so as to profit from them and not confuse. I will agree that the term Irresistible grace is misleading; however, the question at hand is “can it fail?” Sure we resist God in our depravity and in our sanctification, here is a “we must grasp this” point: The term irresistible grace refers to the work of God in salvation, not every single choice we make day in and day out. The U and the I are very closely related. However, I think that we as Christians have no quandary in saying that if God wants something done He will make it happen. We have no problem saying “your will be done” and we have no problem believing that God is working all things for the good of those who love Him and are called. If fact I think that most Christian today would say that God is causing or effecting things irresistibly to work for our good (perhaps this effect is easier to believe because it appeals to man-centeredness), for if it could be resisted how could we hold to this incredible promise of God. The doctrine of effectual grace “does not teach and never has taught that God brings people kicking and screaming into the Kingdom or has ever excluded anyone who wanted to be there.” However, what the doctrine does teach us is that God’s effectual grace achieves its purpose; it brings about God’s desired effect. “When I maintain that regeneration is effectual, I mean that it accomplishes its desired goal. It is effective. It gets the job done. We are made alive into faith. The gift is of faith which is truly given and takes root in our hearts.”
During the return trip to your abode I spoke of Choice being what is desired most at the given moment. (See Edwards work, The Freedom of the Will) Simply put, God creates the desire for us to want to come; therefore, we choose according to what we desires most…Christ. Let me say again that, effectual grace is grace that effects what God desires.
Let me address prevenient grace (Some may call it ineffectual or dependent grace. It is close to what Aquinas rejected as cooperative grace) for a moment so that it can be removed from possible objection. Two question that this “grace” must answer: (1) Why do some choose and some do not? (2) Was the reason one chose and another did not due to some form of human-righteousness? I do not believe in this type of grace, but if I did I would not be able to find a biblical answer to the question, “why have I chosen Christ and my lost friends have not?” “Is it because I did the right thing, I made the right response, and my friend didn't?” (in your response, if you deem it beneficial to make one, please defend your stance on prevenient grace) The main focus here is grace. Paul says it by grace we have been saved through faith (Eph 2:8-9) So we see that faith, though it is our responsibility and as I hope to show later Jesus doesn’t seem to think that human responsibility is mitigated, does not originate with the believer, but with God. Grace alone! As my newest mentor says, “we must not allow ourselves [Jeffrey] to be sidetracked by modern notions of what is or is not possible for God…[you and I] are not to think that God can only take action when we graciously give Him permission.” My response to Dr. Morris was this, “yes sir.”
For the remainder of my response I will refer back to prevenient grace often for this was your position, which carries heavy Arminian undertones, even though you said that you thought Arminian theology was “messed up.” I would now like very much to supply a more biblical presentation of my thesis (not that the former has lacked biblical foundation and support). Let us first turn to Jesus’ teaching and then to Paul’s teaching on the matter. John writes in John 6:37, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” And later in verse 44, Jesus gives the negative “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” The combination of the two (vv. 37, 44) show that grace cannot be reduced to prevenient grace. In fact, it appears that Jesus makes the possibility of coming to Him apart from God’s effectual calling and grace a fallacy. This drawing, mention in verse 44, is the sovereign work of God’s grace without which no one can be saved from their rebellion against God. As Piper notes, “Again some say, ‘He draws all men, not just some.’ But this simply evades the clear implication of the context that the Father's ‘drawing’ is why some believe and not others.” Let me point out two things. (1) The coming to Jesus is spoken of as a gift. Coming to Jesus is given to some people and not others. (2) Jesus says this to explain why there are some who do not believe (John 6:64-65). Dr. Carson comments on the passages in John this way: “There exists a group of people who have been given by the Father to the Son, and this group will inevitably come to the Son and be preserved by Him, not only recurs in this chapter (vs. 65) and perhaps in 10:29, but is strikingly central to the Lord’s prayer in chapter 17 (vv. 1,6,9,24).”
Now let me turn to Paul, 1 Corinthians 1:23-24 says, "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jew and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." Please take notice of the two calls that are found in these verses. Paul’s preaching goes out to all men (Jews and Greeks), which is the general or outward call of God. This called of God “offers salvation to all who will believe on the crucified Christ.” Look at the results of this call: stumbling block and foolishness. The second call is different, Christ crucified is now the power of God. This must be a different calling, a effectual inward calling and after the inward call, we respond to God with the gift of faith. Piper notes, “ If ALL who are called in this sense regard the cross as the power of God, then something in the call must effect the faith.” My heart and mind resonate with this quote from an unknown theologian “If God be not the proper bestower, author, and efficient cause of virtue, then the greatest benefits flow not from him; are not owing to his goodness, nor have we him to thank for them.”
2 Timothy 2:24-25 says, "The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth."
When a person hears the outward call, he can resist that call. But if God gives him repentance, if God gives him faith, if God regenerates the heart, he cannot resist because the gift is the removal of resistance. “Not being willing to repent is the same as resisting the Holy Spirit. So if God gives repentance it is the same as taking away the resistance. This is why we call this work of God ‘irresistible grace’ [or effectual grace].”
I think this truth is further explained in 2 Corinthians 4:4-6, 1 John 5:1, and Acts 16:14 when Lydia listened to the outward call of God through Paul’s preaching and Luke writes, "The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul." When John says that God gives the right to become the children of God to all who receive Christ (John 1:12), he goes on to say that those who do receive Christ "were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." John is saying that you have to receive Christ to become a child of the Father; however, the birth cannot happen by the will of man.
Let me chase a rabbit for a moment; consider this a short break before I try to put this response to bed. I am going to be brutally honest here. It ticks me off when I here someone question God love for us, when someone says, “Where is the love?” The doctrine of effectual grace refers to the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of our heart and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved. “If our doctrine of total depravity is true, there can be no salvation without the reality of irresistible grace. If we are dead in our sins, totally unable to submit to God, then we will never believe in Christ unless God overcomes our rebellion.” This my friend is most loving, how dare we say that God’s effectual grace is unloving and makes us robots; He does not make us robots, He loving makes us His, by His own perfect will which abounds to the praise of His glory. As a matter of fact in my own personal study of effectual grace I find myself with more joy in God and more loved by Him.
Let me end this ridiculously long electronic beast of an email with what is quickly becoming a heart satisfying, God-centered, joy inducing, favorite passage of mine.
Romans 8:28-39
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, "FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG; WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED." But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The progression in verses 29 and 30 is all-inclusive. To break the progression, what some scholars call the “golden chain,” may find us losing our salvation or failing to be justified thus ensuring that are salvation is lost. Let me explain. Every link in the chain belongs to the other. This being said we can safely say that those who are predestined will be glorified. Those who are glorified were foreknown. As one scholar points out that, “This passage in Romans is elliptical. That is, it requires that we supply a word to it that is assumed by the text but not explicitly stated. The big question is, which word do we supply—some or all?” To supply the word some is detrimental to the text and thus the whole of biblical teaching. Try to follow this, “It would mean that some of the predestined never hear the call of the gospel. Some who are called never come to faith and justification. Some of the justified fail to be glorified. In this schema not only would calling not be effectual, but neither would predestination nor justification be effectual.” the implication of the text is therefore all. I just finished reading a book in which the author writes:
The implication of this text is that all who are predestined are likewise called. All who are called are justified, and all who are justified are glorified.
If that is the case, then we must distinguish between the outward call of the gospel, which may or may not be heeded, and the inward call of the Spirit, which is necessarily effectual. Why? If all the called are also justified, then all the called must exercise faith. Obviously not everyone who hears the external call of the gospel comes to faith and justification. But all who are effectually called do come to faith and justification. Here the call refers to the inward work of the Holy Spirit that is tied to regeneration.
Again, Paul cannot mean the external call, for everyone who receives the external call is not justified. Wrap your brain around this, “the salvation of believers not yet born can be expressed in the past tense.
I realize that I have only set forth the rational for the first part of my thesis; however, I feel as though your eyes have belonged to my words for long enough and it is time to release them. Let me close with this, “the only reason that God saves anyone is for the sake of Jesus… The ultimate reason for predestination is the honor and glory of Jesus.” The fact that our election is based in the love of the Father for the Son is a comforting one. I read a quote from A.W. Tozer during college that said this about God, “the harmony of His being is the results not of a perfect balance or parts, but of the absence of parts.” Let us press on to know this mysterious God that is not made, but is. Sorry for the spelling errors. Thank you for your time and diligence.
Yours in Christ,
Jeffrey
posted by Jeffrey @ 10:33 PM
0 comments
