TOTAL DEPRAVITY SCRIPTURALLY REFUTED
Withall that we considered in the previous chapter, let us now take a closer look at some of the key passages dealing with the subject of spiritual birth, especially as regeneration relates to faith in Jesus Christ. In John 1:12-13, the apostle John tells us that: As many as received Him[Jesus Christ], to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Requisite to this spiritual birth, which gives us the right to become and to be called the children of God, is:
Receiving Jesus Christ.
Receiving Jesus Christ involves:
Believing in the name of Jesus Christ.
This spiritual birth is not a physical birth. That is, it is not of blood, of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man. To say that it is not of blood, of the will of the flesh, or of man, is to say it is not the result of procreation or accomplished by man. As we learn in John 3:6, that which is born of the flesh isflesh. That is, the physical procreative process produces physical beings. Likewise, that which is born of the Spirit is spiritual in nature. Since it is the Spirit of God that gives spiritual life, or spiritually regenerates the spiritually dead, the person regenerated is related to God by that means. That is, he is born of Godand/or of the will of God. The place and importance of man’s will, or choice if you prefer, is discerned in the fact that we must choose to receive or believe in Jesus Christ. To say, as these verses do, that this birth is not physical but spiritual, that it relates us not to man but to God, and that it is of God and not man, is not to teach that man has no say with regard to being born again. Far from teaching, as Calvinism does, that man cannot have a say in whether or not he will be born again, this portion of Scripture teaches just the opposite. It does so in the strongest possible terms. For if we are repeatedly told we must believe and are constantly warned of the consequences of not believing, it must be assumed that we can and should believe. To receive and believe are not the words that should be used, if we are supposed to be totally passive in the salvation process. God is the giver, we are the receivers. God is the Savior, we are the believers. Receiving and believing is our responsibility, while giving us new life and regenerating the spiritually dead (a reference to everyone before receiving Christ by faith) is God’s work.
SCRIPTURALLY SPEAKING, FAITH IS FIRST Does it not seem almost too obvious that John is telling his readers that receiving Christ, which he equates with believing in Christ, is the prerequisite to becoming a child of God, or of being born of God? The Calvinist has turned this passage on its head by saying that God makes you a child of God so you can believe and receive Christ. The reason the Calvinist reverses the order is because of Reformed Theology and not what he finds in the text itself. If you are a Calvinist now, consider how, in your pre-Calvinist days, you read this passage, without anyone telling you how to read it. The Calvinist latches onto the words “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man.” He then claims that this proves a man cannot receive or believe before he is born again. This is also to say that he cannot choose to receive the eternal life that comes with regeneration until after he is regenerated. It is clear that John is using these words in contrast to the words “born ... of God” to emphasize from whom the receiver/believer is directly getting this new life. That is, when you are born again, you are born of God.
The first birth is physical and natural.
The second birth is spiritual and supernatural.
The first birth is caused by and is the result of human activity.
The second birth is caused by and is the result of divine activity.
To say that God is the cause of that birth or the one who directly gives that life and is the only one capable of producing that life, is not to say that there is no God-ordained prerequisite to the life of regeneration. There most definitely is.
CONDITION VERSUS CONSEQUENCE To reduce this conditionof receiving or believing in Christ for rebirth to a mere consequenceof rebirth:
Reverses the obvious order in these verses,
Flies in the face of what John says elsewhere in his writings, and
Contradicts what Peter says about how one comes to be born again (1 Peter 1:23; 1 Peter 1:25).
The apostle Peter says that we have:
... been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever. ... Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you. (1 Pet.
1:23, 25) Is it necessary for us to believe the gospel, through which we are born again, in order to be born again? Or must we be born again so we can and will believe the gospel as the Calvinist contends? It is clear from what Peter says that the incorruptible seed precedes rebirth. The question is this: is the seed—God’s Word in the form of the gospel—received byfaith or without faith? If it is received by faith, then faith is beforeand leads toregeneration.
LIFE BEFORE CONCEPTION?
Boice, like all other Calvinists, insists that faith must follow regeneration because of the total inability resulting from the total depravity of man. Still, in his interpretation of 1 Peter 1:23, he says:
God firstplants within our heart what we might call the ovum of faith. ... Second,He sends forth the seed of His Word, which contains the divine life within it, to pierce the ovum of faith. The result is spiritual conception.411
Boice is careful to point out that God gives the faith that enables a person to receive the Word. Nevertheless, he places faith before spiritual conceptionas a prerequisite to conception, which is before spiritual birth, which in turn is before saving faith. If Boice is right, then faith is before spiritual birth since it is before spiritual conception. In a conscious effort to combat what he believes to be the error of reducing saving faith to mere intellectual assent, while commenting on John 3:18, MacArthur says: This phrase (lit. “to believe into the name”) [of Jesus Christ] means more than mere intellectual assent to the claims of the gospel. It includes trust and commitment to Christ as Lord and Savior which results in receiving a new nature (v. 7) which produces a change in heart and obedience to the Lord.412
Setting aside for now MacArthur’s definition of saving faith, notice closely the order and relation he suggests for faith and the new nature:
True and saving faith includes trust and commitment.
True and saving faith results in a new nature.
A new nature produces a change of heart and obedience to the Lord.
If the new nature resultsfrom faith, then faith is logicallyif not chronologicallybefore the new nature. If the new nature is what regeneration is all about, then faith is beforeregeneration or is what results inregeneration. It would seem that MacArthur wants to have it both ways. He not only says that regeneration must initiate faith but also that faith results in regeneration. This cannot be so. MacArthur also says:
Chapter 1:12, 13, [of the Gospel of John] indicates that “born again” also carries the idea “to become children of God” through trust in the name of the incarnate Word.413
We cannot logically say that regeneration is through trust or faith and then turn around and say that faith is through regeneration. MacArthur needs to make up his mind concerning which way he is going to go on this.
Calvinists wrongly accuse non-Calvinists of synergism, because they (i.e., Calvinists) wrongly believe that the faith required of a man to be saved by God somehow negates the affirmation that only God saves. While it is commendable to insist that only God saves, it is unreasonable and unscrip tural to make God responsible for that which God makes man responsible. No matter what their intentions, Calvinists have made God (in their thinking and theology) both the giver of the gift of salvation and the one who receives the gift of salvation on behalf of those He saves. Calvin on certain occasions said things that would lead one to conclude that he believed faith comes before and leads to regeneration. Conversely, on other occasions, he taught the exact opposite. In speaking about the fall of man in Adam, Calvin said:
Man, when he withdrew his allegiance to God, was deprived of the spiritual gifts. ... Hence it follows, that he is now an exile from the kingdom of God, so that all the things which pertain to the blessed life of the soul are extinguished in him until he recovers them by the grace of regeneration. Among these are faith .414
Some have suggested that this apparent conflict can be resolved by understanding that Calvin, at least some of the time, used the term regeneration in a very broad sense. In this broad sense the order of salvation is (supposedly) not in view. Sinclair Ferguson says:
Calvin uses “regeneration” to denote the whole process of renewal, repentance, mortification and vivification (new life), in contrast to later Evangelical theology’s use of the term in an inaugural sense (new birth).415 Hoeksema distinguishes between what he refers to as:
... regeneration in the narrowest sense of the word .416
And:
... regeneration in the broader sense of the word.417 This simply does not solve the problem since contemporary Calvinism says that regeneration, in this narrower sense, precedes faith and Calvin at times said just the opposite:
Christ confers upon us, and we obtain by faith, both free reconciliation and newness of life.418
Thus, sometimes Calvin taught that faith comes before newness of life. Whether that newness of life was in the narrow or broad sense, you still have faith first. Even so, in keeping with mainstream Calvinism, Wilson says: The first indications of the Spirit’s quickening are repentance and belief. The new birth does not result from repentance and belief, as many mistakenly imagine. It is the other way around. Repentance and faith are gifts from God that He bestows through the Spirit. . No one can have faith unless it is first given by God. That way no one can take credit for his own salvation.419
If Wilson is right, it would mean, for example, that if he gave me a copy of the book in which he said this, I could take part of the credit for writing that book, assuming he required me to accept this book as his gift to me. According to Calvinism, to view faith as man’s responsibility would be to give man a legitimate reason for boasting. The consequence of this would mean that you could thank yourself for the gifts that were given to you because your voluntary reception of the gifts made you a co-giver of the gifts. Sound silly? Boettner explains:
If any person believes, it is because God has quickened him; and if any person fails to believe, it is because God has withheld that grace ...420 God is, therefore, just as responsible for unbelief as He is for faith, according to this view. The Canons of Dort say: This conversion is that regeneration, new creation, resurrection from the dead, making alive, so highly spoken of in the Scriptures, which God works in us without us. But this regeneration is by no means brought about only by outward preaching, by moral persuasion, or by such a mode of operation that, after God has done his part, it remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not regenerated, converted or not converted . regeneration is not inferior in power to creation or the resurrection of the dead. Hence all those in whose hearts God works in this amazing way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectually regenerated and do actually believe.421
According to Reformed Theology, to enable a man to believe (John 6:44) without making a man believe or making him a believer, would be “the power of man to be regenerated or not.” This is the equivalent of saying that if a man has the ability to accept a gift, he has the power to give the gift. To the contrary, merely because I have the ability to accept an abundance of money and thereby become rich, it does not follow that I have the power to make myself rich. In the same way, if someone makes me rich by giving me a fortune, I could not, by virtue of my ability and choice to accept that money, take credit for my new and welcomed wealth. And yet this is the logic of The Canons of Dortin particular and of Calvinism in general. In John 3:1-8, Jesus carries on a conversation with a man named Nicodemus, some of which we have already considered. During this conversation, Jesus told Nicodemus that the only hope of seeingor enteringthe kingdom of God was to be born again. In verse 3, Jesus said to Nicodemus:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” In verse 7, He said:
“Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘you must be born again. ’ ”
Sproul is right when he says:
It was Jesus who first declared that spiritual rebirth was an absolute necessity for entering the kingdom of God. .422 Sproul then correctly says: The word unlessin Jesus’ teaching signals a universally necessary condition for seeing and entering the kingdom of God. Rebirth then is an essential part of Christianity; without it, entrance to God’s kingdom is impossible. . Just as birth is our initiation, our first entrance into life outside the womb, so rebirth is the starting point of our spiritual life.423 Crenshaw, however, asks: But where in the passage did the Lord tell Nicodemus howto be born again? Some say that it is necessary or one could not enter the kingdom, which is true. The word for “must” in John 3 (dei) means “it is necessary,” but it is not a command to do so. Even if it were, a command does not mean one would have the ability to obey.424
Most Calvinists say you shouldbe born again, even if you are in the reprobate caste and cannot be born again. They cannot say that any reprobate person canbe born again. Gerstner, in his commentary on John 1:12-13, says:
We must not get the notion that people come to Jesus, and as a result of that they are “born again.” ... Those who do come to Jesus are not therefore born again, but on the contrary indicate that they have been born again. In other words, they are not born again because they have come to Jesus but they have come to Jesus because they have been born again.425
Gerstner is right in stride with the way Calvin handled this passage. As is so typical of Calvin, however, he begins his commentary on this portion of Scripture suggesting that he believes one way but then quickly corrects that initial impression. Thus he says:
... The Evangelist ... says that by faith they obtain this glory of being reckoned the sons of God . the Evangelist adds, that they become the sons of God, not by the will which belongs to the flesh, but when they are born of God. But if faith regenerates us, so that we are the sons of God, and if God breathes faith into us from heaven, it plainly appears that not by possibility only, but actually—as we say—is the grace of adoption offered to us by Christ. ... He expresses briefly the manner of receiving Christ, that is, believing in him. Having been engrafted into Christ by faith, we obtain the right of adoption, so as to be the sons of God. The Evangelist declares that this power is given to those who already believe. .
Now it is certain that such persons are in reality the sons of God.
... They detract too much from the value of faith who say that, by believing, a man obtains nothing more than that he may become a son of God .426 The error Calvin was combating was the notion that faith in Christ only made it possible for a man to be a child of God. Calvin rightly reasoned that faith in Christ resulted not in the mere possibility of becoming a child of God, but the actuality of becoming a child of God. Nevertheless, what Calvin gave, he then inconsistently took away. That is, while he said that believing leads to spiritual rebirth, which in turn makes the new believer a child of God, he also said that rebirth must come first. Thus he said: The Evangelist says that those who believe are already born of God ... faith ... is the fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man can believe, unless he be begotten of God; and therefore faith is a heavenly gift. It follows ... that faith is not bare or cold knowledge, since no man can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of God.427
Calvin was well aware of the logical problems he posed by affirming a regenerationthat both precedes and produces faith, and also a faiththat precedes and produces regeneration. He said:
It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree;because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed (1 Peter 1:23) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children. The illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration as from its source; but since it is by the same faith that we receive Christ, who sanctifies us by his Spirit, on that account it is said to be the beginning of our adoption.428 According to Calvin, in terms of an order of salvation, this first solution is as follows:
The gift of faith is first, enabling us to receive the incorruptible seed.
Regeneration is second, resulting from the implanted seed that we are enabled to receive by the gift of faith.
Active faith in Christ is third, in that it is produced by regeneration
and in a sense is a part of the regeneration/salvation package.
Stated differently, we have a receivedgift of faith, followedby an implanted seed, resultingin regeneration, producingan exercised faith. The other solution Calvin suggests involves an appeal to the hiddenmethods of God. Thus he said:
Another solution, still more plain and easy, may be offered; for when the Lord breathes faith into us, he regenerates us by some method that is hidden and unknown to us; but after we have received faith, we perceive, by a lively feeling of conscience, not only the grace of adoption, but also newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit. For since faith, as we have said, receives Christ, it puts us in possession, so to speak, of all his blessings.
Thus so far as respects our sense, it is only after having believed that we begin to be the sons of God.429 This second solution is really not another solution, but simply another way to state the first solution. Insofar as the order is concerned, the gift of faith is first, and regeneration is second. It begins with the implanted seed, and is followed by a conscious expression of faith. This is also what might best be considered the phenomenological explanation of the order of salvation. That is, just as the sun appears to rise and set (and yet we know that really the earth rotates on its axis), we can, for all practical purposes, speak of the sun rising and setting at a particular time each day (without forfeiting our scientific credibility).
According to Calvinism, the apostle John (in John 1:12-13) is teaching the exact opposite of what he appears to be teaching. To use John 1:12-13 to prove that regeneration must precede faith in Christ is like using a sphere to prove the earth is flat. No one coming to this passage without a Calvinist bias could interpret it as does the Calvinist. In fact, just the opposite is true. Unless one is wearing Calvinist-colored glasses, the Calvinist interpretation of this passage (i.e., rebirth before faith in Christ) is completely unobtainable. White is right when he says in reference to John 1:12-13 :
... God is the one who causes the new birth in contrast to any action of the will of man.430
He is wrong to suggest that what God causes is not and cannot be conditioned upon faith in Christ. It would be like saying that since justification is caused by God, justification is not and cannot be conditioned upon faith in Christ. Non-Calvinists do not say the will of man can regenerate a man. Man’s will is simply incapable of doing such a thing. Faith is not capable of regenerating a man. Not even faith in Christ is capable of such a thing. No non-Calvinist I know believes it is the will of man or the decision of a man to believe, or for that matter, that it is believing that gives a spiritually dead man new life in Christ. Only God gives this new life because only God is capable of giving life to the spiritually dead. While Calvinists constantly complain they are being misrepresented, they attribute views to non-Calvinist Evangelicals they should know cannot accurately or fairly represent us. Concerning John 3:11-21, even MacArthur says: The key word in these verses is “believe,” used 7 times. The new birth must be appropriated by an act of faith.431
MacArthur cannot have it both ways. Either regeneration initiates faith and therefore precedes faith, or regeneration is appropriated by faith, or through faith, making faith first.
According to Sproul, Ephesians 2:1-10 represents:
... A predestinarian passage par excellence .432 He then goes on to say: This passage celebrates the newness of life that the Holy Spirit has created in us.433 Keep in mind that it is newness of life that is obtained by faith, according to Calvin. Sproul then clarifies:
What is here [in Ephesians 2:1-10] called quickening or being made alive is what is elsewhere called rebirth or regeneration . the beginning of spiritual life.434
We have already considered this passage relative to the Calvinist contention that faith is the gift of God or is included with the gift of God that Paul is talking about in Ephesians 2:1-10. This time we focus on what the text says relative to the logical relationship of faith to regeneration. The apostle Paul tells us that salvation is not only by grace but that it is also through faith. Even though the system of Calvinism that Calvin is responsible for helping create denies this, commenting on these verses, Calvin rightly said that the apostle Paul:
... Asserts that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work, the free work, of God but they had obtained this grace by faith. On one side, we must look at God; and on the other, at men. God declares that He owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but mere grace. Now it may be asked how men receive the salvation offered to them by the hand of God? I reply by faith. Hence he concludes that there is nothing of our own, if on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips of all praise, it follows that salvation is not of us.435
If the obtaining of a gracious salvation is dependent upon faith, then logically speaking faith must be first. This could not possibly imply that the believer is a co-savior. It does not allow a man to take any credit for his salvation. The greatly respected Calvinist professor J. Gresham Machen says:
Faith consists not in doing something but in receiving some thing.436
And:
Faith is no more than an activity of reception contributing nothing to that which it receives.437 Charles Spurgeon is right when he says:
Faith excludes all boasting. The hand which receives charity does not say “I am to be thanked for accepting the gift”; that would be absurd.438
While it must be emphasized that we bring nothing but faith, it must also be emphasized that we must bring faith. Calvin is absolutely right when he suggests that because we only bring faith, we have nothing to boast about. Requiring the lost to bring faith is not to ask the lost to make a contribution to their salvation, but it is a constant reminder that salvation is all of God and not at all of man. NO CHOICE?
Many Calvinists will admit that they came to Christ, or at least thought they did, when they believed the gospel that someone proclaimed to them. And yet the Calvinist view must imply that their act of believing was, from beginning to end, God’s act and not their own; that the only reason they believed was because they were in the elect caste—otherwise they would have been unable to believe, consigned to the non-elect caste forever. They are also saying that many unbelievers are not now and will never be able to come to Christ. A few years ago at a Harvest Crusade, some hyper-Calvinist zealots showed up with T-shirts that had the word choice circled with a diagonal line through it, indicating that no one has a choice. These people actively sought to discourage people from making a choice to accept Jesus Christ as Savior. Admittedly, this is not the typical behavior of Calvinists, certainly not mainstream Calvinists. It is easy, however, to see how a Calvinist could justify such an attitude. Even among mainstream Calvinists, however, the faith people place in Christ at such events is often assumed to be spurious. This is often described, within mainstream Calvinism, by the theologically pejorative term decisionalism. Taking Calvinism to its logical extreme makes the Calvinists like men that safely and easily cross over a deep and dangerous canyon on the only bridge provided for that purpose. Then they tell others that there may not be a bridge for them to cross over on, and if there is, they will simply find it under them some day.
Although John 1:12-13 makes it clear that a person is born again upon believing in Jesus Christ, it will still be helpful to consider the question asked by Nicodemus about how one can be born again. There are two how questions and answers to consider. One could simply answer that this is what God does supernaturally. God gives us life. When He does, we become His spiritual children. That, of course, does not really tell us how He does it. It is enough for most of us to know that He does it. From the perspective of the lost, we might also ask, “How can I make sure that I am one of those to whom God gives this new life or new birth?” A consistent Calvinist would answer that there is nothing you can do to determine whether you will or will not be born again. There are some things that may help you to discover that you are one of the elect. There is nothing, says the consistent Calvinist, that you can do to determine you are one of the elect. That is, if you become a believer and follow through with a reasonably holy life, that is a pretty good indication (though not solid proof) that you are one of the elect. If you really want proof of election, that will have to wait until you have persevered in faith and righteousness to the end of your life on earth. There is nothing you can do, however, if Calvinism is true, to determine if you are elect or reprobate. That was settled long before you were born, and you simply have no say in the matter. This is despite the fact that John 3:3; John 3:7 clearly express the need and necessity for spiritual rebirth in two of the most famous statements from the New Testament. The Calvinist tells us that our Lord was only telling Nicodemus what must happen if he is to see or enter the kingdom, not that Nicodemus could do anything about it. He was not, according to Calvinism, telling Nicodemus that he oughtto be born again, as if Nicodemus could choose to be born again. The Calvinist mustis not a command, but merely the inevitable result of election, Christ’s death for the elect alone, and irresistible grace leading to regeneration. Regeneration then results in or produces faith for the elect. Even to the most careless student, however, it should be obvious that Jesus is still talking to Nicodemus when He says:
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) John 3:16 SAYS IT ALL
John 3:16 is the answer to Nicodemus’ question of howone can be born again—both in terms of the cause (God) and condition (faith). Jesus, in this most beloved of all verses, tells us:
How God feels about the world (He loves it).
The extent to which He loves it (He gave His Son for it).
What He offers to the world through His Son (He offers eternal life).
Who can receive what He offers (whoever, all or everyone who believes can receive it).
To say that John 3:16 says it allis not to suggest that this is all we need to know about salvation, as some have simplistically charged us with asserting. Rather, it is to say that John 3:16 speaks clearly and with finality on this matter of howone can move from the category of the unregenerate to the category of the regenerate. Stated differently, John 3:16 unambiguously tells us how the spiritually dead can become spiritually alive and how the unbelieving lost can become the eternally saved. It says that you mustbelieve and clearly implies you oughtto believe and canbelieve. Remember that the context of John 3:16 is within the context of John 3:3; John 3:7. Our Lord did not say what He said (recorded in Chapter 3, verse 16) in a vacuum.
John 3:16 is to be understood in the context of a conversation with Nicodemus about the absolute necessity of regeneration. Our Lord told Nicodemus what must happen, what ought to happen, and what can happen. Rebirth is both caused and commanded by God. He causes it to happen when we meet the God-ordained condition for it to happen. That is, we are born again when we believe in or receive Jesus Christ. The Calvinist then asks: how can a person who is spiritually dead make a spiritual decision (i.e., believe in or receive Christ)? Boettner reasons:
If a man were dead, in a natural and physical sense, it would at once be readily granted that there is no further possibility of that man being able to perform any physical actions. A corpse cannot act in any way whatever, and that man would be reckoned to have taken leave of his senses who asserted that it could. If a man is dead spiritually, therefore, it is surely equally as evident that he is unable to perform any spiritual actions .439
If Boettner was consistent, he could not propose that John 3 represents an argument by Jesus to Nicodemus, since it would be useless to attempt to reason with a spiritually dead man about spiritual things—a spiritually dead man cannot even hear what Jesus is saying to him (according to what Boettner thinks “spiritually dead” means). There would be no reason for Jesus to talk to a spiritually dead man about spiritual things, knowing that the spiritually dead man could not even hear what He was saying to him. Although the analogy of physical and spiritual death and life is valid for our Lord’s limited purpose, Calvinists go beyond the limits of the analogy to argue that spiritually dead men are effectively spiritually insentient. If it were the case that the physical unresponsiveness of physical death mandates spiritual unresponsiveness for those spiritually dead, then it would be the case that those who have “died to sin” (all Christians according to Romans 6:3) would be insentient to sin—in other words, no longer able to sin. And yet the Bible tells us that if we say we have no sin, we are liars (1 John 1:8). Since we know that John does not contradict Jesus, spiritual death must not imply the inability to respond assumed by Boettner and other Calvinists.
All Calvinists would agree that Adam spiritually died the instant he sinned against God. Yet all Calvinists will admit that the same spiritually dead Adam was able to hear the living God and carry on a conversation with Him sometime after his spiritual demise. That strikes me as a very spiritual interaction that demonstrates a spiritual capacity on the part of the spiritually dead. Thus, just because a person is spiritually dead does not mean he cannot believe the gospel when it is presented to him. In fact, since it is to all the lost and only the lost (the spiritually dead of this world) that the gospel is to be preached, it should be assumed that they can believe. Scripture, however, more than assumes that a lost person can believe. It commands and requires that he believe as a condition of becoming a saved person. That is also why Scripture holds an unbeliever accountable for rejecting the gospel and remaining in unbelief. In fact, it is precisely because a man is spiritually dead that it is so vital that we get the offer of life and the message concerning the absolute necessity of regeneration to him. The spiritually alive (i.e., the regenerated) do not need the life offered in the gospel. They already have it.
Believing for the unregenerate is not, according to Calvinism, a command to obey but a gift that is involuntarily received. When they say the elect are regenerated so they can believe, they mean that the elect are regenerated and will believe and are in fact made believers. Some Calvinists make a distinction (intentional or otherwise) between the faith that is received involuntarily (and that comes with the gift of regeneration) and the faith that is exercised in Christ after faith is placed in the believer as a part of the regenerating work of God.
Suppose I wanted to turn a poor man into a rich man. I could offer him money that he could refuse and thereby remain poor. This is the way salvation is offered according to Scripture. What if, however, I simply put the money in this poor man’s bank account (or pocket)? This is salvation according to Calvinism. You must (and will) first involuntarily receive faith when you are born again. Then you must (and will) irresistibly and freely place that faith in Christ because you have been turned into a believer by the regenerating work of God. God irresistibly makes you freely receive what He offers you in Christ, according to Calvinism. If you have trouble reconciling such a contradiction of terms, you are not alone.
According to Reformed Theology, God causes the elect lost to receive regeneration (which comes with faith) involuntarily so that he can voluntarily accept all that is available to him and that is his and is obtained through faith. Thus, we have an involuntarily received faith, followed by a voluntarily exercised faith to accept all that comes to us through that faith. But that would mean that there is a gift of faith that is not equal to (though it does lead to) believing in Christ. In other words, as money must be spent, so faith must be exercised. Can biblical faith, which is also a saving faith, be viewed as anything less than, or short of, faith in Jesus Christ?
If the Calvinist says that the faith we are given is faith in Jesus Christ, it would be like putting money in a man’s pocket and spending it for him at the same time. But if the one who gives us the faith gives us an exercised faith (a faith in Christ), then it is not the newly regenerated that is doing the believing, but God. That is, the regenerated one is not simply enabled to believe, but is made a believer and unable not to believe as a result of regeneration. Despite the protest of Calvinists, they have implied that saving faith in Christ is the result of God the Father believing in His Son through a regenerated man.
I realize that it sounds silly to say someone affirms the proposition that saving faith is God believing in His Son through us. According to Calvinism, however, the faith that comes with regeneration is irresistibly exercised just as it is irresistibly received. If it is irresistibly exercised, it is effectively God doing the believing. Sound ridiculous? It is. All this just tends to complicate, distort, and confuse what is in Scripture a very straightforward proposition. That is, before we become Christians, we are lost in our sins and in need of a Savior. Jesus Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins and then triumphed over death. We simply need to turn to Him in faith. He then gives us a new life, making us His children. The same faith in Christ that enables us to receive Him is the faith by which we are justified (declared righteous) and through which we are saved. Sound simple? It actually is. It is certainly not as complicated as Calvinism makes it.
Rising almost to the level of a mantra, the Calvinist constantly repeats the misleading sentiment that the spiritually dead cannot do anything of a positive spiritual nature. The lost are spiritual corpses, according to Calvinism, with no more capacity for believing in Christ than a cadaver has for choosing what the mortician will dress it in for its funeral. As already stated, this is not, however, what the Bible means when it says a man is spiritually dead before and until he is given life in Christ.
Calvinists love to use Lazarus as their example of lostness. Like Lazarus, they say, the Lord raises the spiritually dead without their consent. As Lazarus passively received life from our Lord, without believing in Christ, they also say the unbeliever, without believing, receives life and then faith with that life. They insist that he does not, and indeed cannot, believe before he receives new life in Christ and from Christ. In contrast, Jesus gives us an example of what it means to be spiritually lost and spiritually dead. He also makes it clear that the way to life and salvation for the spiritually dead and spiritually lost man is anything but passive.
Jesus prefaces His story of a spiritually dead and spiritually lost man with two other stories. Here is Chapter Fifteen of Luke to give the complete context:
Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This Man receives sinners and eats with them.” So He spoke this parable to them, saying:
“What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost! ’ I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.
“Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one coin, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? And when she has found it, she calls her friends and neighbors together, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the piece which I lost! ’ Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
Then He said: “A certain man had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the portion of goods that falls to me. ’ So he divided to them his livelihood. And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together, journeyed to a far country, and there wasted his possessions with prodigal living. But when he had spent all, there arose a severe famine in that land, and he began to be in want. Then he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would gladly have filled his stomach with the pods that the swine ate, and no one gave him anything.
“But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.” ’
“And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
“But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found. ’And they began to be merry.
“Now his older son was in the field. And as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. And he said to him,
‘Your brother has come, and because he has received him safe and sound, your father has killed the fatted calf.’
“But he was angry and would not go in. Therefore his father came out and pleaded with him. So he answered and said to his father,
‘Lo, these many years I have been serving you; I never transgressed your commandment at any time; and yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might make merry with my friends. But as soon as this son of yours came, who has devoured your livelihood with harlots, you killed the fatted calf for him.’
“And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours. It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found. ’ ”
Before discussing the implications of the road to life and salvation for the prodigal son, it should be noted that while sheep may be passive in the process by which they are rescued, the Lord does not allow us to see a noninvolved sinner in the analogy. For He says:
“There will be ... joy in heaven over one sinner who repents.” (Luke 15:7)
Thus, repentance was requisite from the sinner’s side, as seeking and finding was requisite from the shepherd’s side. Likewise, even though a lost coin does not and cannot help a lady find it, the Lord again does not allow us to conclude that lost people have no responsibility in being found. For once again He follows this story with the telling words:
“There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” (Luke 15:10) In both stories, while the saving or finding is outside the ability of the lost sheep and lost coin respectively, a sinner repenting is cause for celebration. The Calvinist will say that the sinner only repents because he has been found and is not found because he repents. This, however, misses the point of the stories. When the focus is on man’s responsibility versus God’s desire to find and rescue that which was lost, we can clearly see the way to life and salvation from the human side of the salvation equation. That is:
“When he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father,
I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.” ’And he arose and came to his father. ”
Finally, the father said of his repentant son that he .
“ ‘... was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found. ’ ” So much for the Calvinist contention that the spiritually dead can do nothing of a positive spiritual nature while yet spiritually dead! God wants you to know what you must doto be born again, which is to believe in Jesus Christ. Spiritual deadness is your problem. Spiritual life is God’s solution. Faith in Jesus Christ is the means by which God has ordained that you should avail yourself of the life He offers you. Calvinist pastor Dr. D. James Kennedy seems to concede this very point. In his book, Why I Believe,in a chapter stressing the necessity of rebirth, he says:
We have an imperative, that is true, but it contains within itself the germ of a promise. For if it is true that we must be born again, then it is also true that we maybe born again. ... We can be forgiven. We can be recreated. We can have new hearts, new affections, new life, new power, new purpose, new direction, and new destinations. Yes we maybe born again. That, my friends, is the good news.440 Kennedy even seems to concede that faith comes beforeand results in regeneration when he invites his readers:
Place your trust in [Christ]. Ask Him to come in and be born in you today.441 When Kennedy uses the pronoun we,are we to understand that he is only referring to the electwho happen to hear or read these words? What kind of good news is this to the reprobate who may not(in fact cannot) be born again? Why would Kennedy ask anyoneto “place your trust in” Christ? If allthe elect will and cannot do otherwise and if noneof the reprobate can, it seems a very odd thing for a Calvinist to make such an appeal.
Perhaps one reason Kennedy’s Evangelism Explosionhas prompted millions of “decisions” worldwide over the time it has been in use is because his Calvinist view of the lost is artfully disguised to look like the very un-Calvinist (but biblical) view that God genuinely invites anylost person to “place your trust” in Christ and “ask Him to come in,” resulting in Him being “born in you today.”
It should be evident that Calvinism has its theological cart before the biblical horse. Thus to accept the first of the five points of Calvinism is to reject—no matter how unwittingly—a reasonable interpretation of John 3:3 as well as many other portions of Scripture. The Calvinist cannot help but win the argument, however, if the way he frames the issue is left unchallenged. In fact, I believe the Calvinist often establishes or rigsthe rules for debate in such a way so as to ensure a favorable outcome for Calvinism. The Calvinist gives you two choices, as if they are the only two choices possible. One choice is to accept what he says is true. In this case, regeneration precedes and even produces faith.The other choice he gives you is to say that you are able, in one way or another, to save yourself. Another way of stating this is to say that you must admit:
Calvinism is right.
Or:
You believe what you know is not true (that you can save yourself).
The Calvinist knows that if you are an Evangelical, you do not believe you can save yourself. He knows that you believe God is the Savior and that only God can legitimately get credit for saving you. As we have repeatedly documented, the Calvinist also believes that if a person could have faith in Christ without regeneration preceding and producing that faith, it would mean he is at least partially his own savior. Since no thoughtful Christian would say such a ridiculous thing, he has got you over a theological bar rel—or so he thinks.
Suppose someone asks you, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” You could answer, “I have never beaten my wife.” What if, however, you were in a court of law and the judge instructed you to answer only with a yesor no? If you say yes,it means you were beating her.If you say no,it means you still are beating her.The problem with the question asked by the Calvinist is with the options you are given to answer the question. You need that additional option—“I have never beaten my wife.” Even so, the Calvinist gives you the Calvinist option and only one other option that is equally wrong. From my perspective, we are being shortchanged by at least one option—the option I have suggested. Carefully consider the way the discussion is framed by Calvinists:
Faith is not something man contributes to salvation ...442 Would our placing faith in Christ, without being regenerated first, mean we contribute something to salvation? Is it not possible that an unregener ate person would turn in faith to Christ precisely becausehe had nothing to contribute? Remember what Machen says. That is, although he incorrectly believed that faith itself is a gift, he correctly says:
Faith consists not in doing something but in receiving some thing.443
And:
Faith is no more than an activity of reception contributing nothing to that which it receives.444 The Calvinist says:
Faith is ... not the sinner’s gift to God.445 Would putting your faith in Christ be givinga gift to God? Could it not be that faith is simply the means by which we receivethe gift of God without our reception being considered a gift itself? How does believing in Christ, which John equates with receiving (John 1:12) become synonymous to the Calvinist with giving? In his notes concerning John 1:12, MacArthur says: As many as received Him ... to those who believe in His name. The second phrase describes the first. To receive Him who is the Word of God means to acknowledge His claims, place one’s faith in Him. ,..446 Elsewhere he says:
“You do not receive” and “you do not believe” mean the same thing.447 The Calvinist view takes the means by which we receive the gift that God gives and says that it is “the sinner’s gift to God,” if indeed it comes before regeneration or as a condition of regeneration. Calvinists rightly reason:
Man does not possess the power of self-regeneration ...448
If, however, we could have faith in Christ before regeneration, would it constitute the power of self-regeneration, as Calvinists charge? Is it not possible that faith is simply the condition that God, the giver of life, requires of the sinner before He will give him that life? Calvinists rightly reason:
... regeneration is exclusively a work of God ...449
If, however, God regenerates the spiritually dead on the condition of faith in Christ, that does not and cannot mean that He does not do all the work of regeneration, as Calvinists charge. Remember what Calvin said:
If we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.450
If we do not pay attention to how the issues have been framed, we will fall into the either/or trap that has been set for us. I am not suggesting that the advocates of Calvinism are intentionally setting a trap. Their intention or motivation, however, is not the issue. The issue is that they have set a false either/or trap and a lot of people seem to be falling into it, not the least of whom are those advocating Calvinism. They have fallen into the proverbial pit that they themselves have dug. The Calvinist argument boils down to the following. God alone regenerates the unregenerate. If the unregenerate must exercise faith in Christ in order to be born again, then the regenerate can take some credit for regeneration. It would not therefore be all of God.It would therefore be some of man.If you agree that it is all of God, then to be consistent, you should also agree that faith is not requiredfor regeneration, but is instead a resultof regeneration. Is justification all of Godor is it some of man?All Calvinists would agree that it is also all of God.Yet, every Calvinist would also agree that justification is by faith. Justification does not lead to faith, but faith leads to justification according to all Evangelicals, including Calvinists. Remember the question asked by the apostle Paul: Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? (Romans 8:33)
He then says:
It is God who justifies. (Romans 8:33)
Paul also says:
Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:1) The Calvinist could say faith can precede and lead to justification and still not allow a man to take credit for justification because the faith that leads to justification is a gift from God. Scripturally speaking, however, since faith is neither a work nor a meritorious act of any kind, God can require a man to believe as a condition of justification, or regeneration for that matter, without surrendering any of the credit to man. The Calvinist could say that the reason faith is not a work or a meritorious act is because it is a gift from God in the first place. Faith, however, is not scripturally viewed as work or a meritorious act simply because it is by definition something different. The writer to the Hebrews says:
He who comes to God must believe that He is. (Hebrews 11:6)
It sounds very much like he is saying that coming to Godis conditioned upon or is even synonymous with faith in God.The Calvinist reverses this by saying that coming to God is a prerequisite to faith. If regeneration is before faith and is a prerequisite to faith, the writer of Hebrews should have said:
He who comes to God must be born again so he can and will believe. A Calvinist can say:
Every biblical command to people to undergo a radical change of character from self-centeredness to God-centeredness is, in effect, an appeal to be “born again.”451 He can also say: In regeneration a person’s sinful nature is changed, and that person is enabled to respond to God in faith.452
What many cannot seemingly see is how absurd this sounds. It puts God in the position of appealing to many, if not most, people to radically change, but not ever intending that they should or even could change. With all this in mind, let us look once again at the Calvinist reasoning that seems so intimidating to some.
Faith is not something man contributes to salvation.
Faith ... is not the sinner’s gift to God.
Man does not possess the power of self-regeneration.
Regeneration is exclusively a work of God.
It is true that faith is not something man contributes to salvation. Faith as a condition,however, is very different from faith as a contribution.
It is true that faith is not the sinner’s gift to God. The exercise of faith to receive the gift from Goddoes not, however, constitute a gift to God.
It is true that man does not possess the power of self-regeneration.If God requires a sinner to believe before He regenerates that sinner, it does not follow that man possesses and exercises some of the power involved in, or required for, regeneration.
It is true that regeneration is exclusivelythe work of God, but that does not mean that we would be sharing in the work of regeneration if God were to insist that we believe in Christ as a condition of regeneration.
Suppose I said (and I do):
Man does not possess the power of self-justification (instead of self-regeneration).
Or:
Justification (instead of regeneration) is exclusively a work of God.
Would that mean that I could not believe faith is before justification? If faith can be before justification, and if justification can be totally of God, then it can be before regeneration without giving man credit for that for which only God deserves credit. Remember the words of Romans 3:27 :
Boasting ... is ... excluded ... by ... faith. In their theology Calvinists have turned faith into something we could boast about by suggesting that a pre-regeneration faith would make the believer a co-savior. They have also effectively made God the believer by their misguided notion of faith as a gift. Is it really possible that many (if not most) of those who need to be born again cannotbe born again, and they cannot be born again because God has so decreed and designedthat they cannot be born again? Remember what Scripture says:
“... you must be born again.” (John 3:7)
“As many as received Him[Jesus Christ], to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13) Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. (1 John 5:1)
“God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)
These[miracles recorded in the Gospel of John] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:31)
These things[truths of John’s first letter] I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:13) He who has the Son has life. (1 John 5:12) God ... commands all men everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30) “There will be ... joy in heaven over one sinner who repents.” (Luke 15:7) “There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” (Luke 15:10)