Don't Be Afraid of Romans Nine

            The ninth chapter of Romans has been the subject of much debate through the centuries because a person’s view of divine sovereignty, human responsibility and the place of Israel in God’s plan may hinge on its interpretation. The exercise of interpreting Romans nine is so disturbing to some that they have opted to ignore teaching it. It is a lot easier to attack the interpretive work of another teacher if you haven’t done the exercise yourself. 

            This blog regularly deals with biblical counseling issues. Embracing what this chapter teaches will bring you to have a God-centered approach to any struggle you could ever bring into the counseling room

            Does God really have the right to do whatever He wants with people, including choosing to save them or leave them in their sins? Later I am going to answer, “Yes,” but let me illustrate.

            I grow rhubarb. I have a thriving stand of it in my garden. It belongs to me. I created a space for it with my tiller. I planted it. My family tends it. We pick some of it and use it for our purposes.

            We can use it for whatever we want. My wife makes killer rhubarb pie, rhubarb torte, rhubarb crisp and rhubarb crunch. I have even sampled some delicious rhubarb punch. I occasionally eat it like a stalk of celery, as disgusting as that might sound to you. Its large leaves, when picked, work well as a mulch to keep down weeds or as a hat to prevent sunburn.

            Rhubarb is valuable to me as long as it accomplishes my purposes. But it tends to shade some of my other garden plants and make them pale. It sometimes encroaches on the territory of other plants. When this happens I have to take action.

            What if rhubarb had a personality? Can you picture those red and green stalks meeting under cover of darkness to plot my overthrow and replace me with the garden rake or the largest tomato plant?

            What if I use my self-propelled Toro lawnmower to take out a section of the rebels? Would those stalks I left complain that the others never had the chance? Would they accuse me of violating the free will of those stalks that really wanted to be in a pie of only they had been given a chance?

            Get this: Even you rhubarb lovers would not take their side against me because the issue is not the free will of the rebels but the free will of the master. It is not what my rhubarb wants but what I want that makes the difference.

            This is where my illustration breaks down. Rhubarb does not have personality. It was not created with a mind, emotions and a will. It has not used its will to replace me. That is why the story of God’s redemption is so much more vivid.

            The story of the Bible is not about great people who achieved great things for God. The story is of a great God, period. We are allowed in His story because He decided to let us in. We belong to Him. He created a space for us. He put us here. He takes care of us and makes us thrive here. He uses us for His purposes.

            Are you ready for this? He has the right to do whatever He wants with us because He is God. Bad thing for us, we have darkened minds, self-focused emotions and depraved wills. Our fallen wills have chosen to replace the living God with anything from statues made of stone to sports to sensuality. Good thing for us, this God does what He wants in complete harmony with His character. And that changeless character is merciful as well as holy.

            The content of the chapter is summarized in verse 18, “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.” Does this mean that God actively chooses the people who get to be saved while passing others by, or is there another way of looking at it? Two primary views emerge: Either (1) God saves individuals on the basis of His character and sovereign plan or (2) God saves nations on the basis of His character and sovereign plan. The second view leaves open the possibility for God to rescue or condemn nations independent of His dealings with individual people.

            It is true that God judges nations while saving His people inside those nations, but that is not the message of Romans 9. While there are national aspects to the election of God (Deuteronomy 7:7-8), this text will demonstrate that viewing God as the Savior of individuals is the interpretation that best fits the purpose of Paul’s letter. The story of God’s redemptive plan for the nation of Israel is an illustration that directs us to His redemptive plan for individuals, not the other way around. Romans nine contends that God is the sovereign ruler over nations and individuals within those nations for His own good purpose and His own glory.

            We humans, like so much rebellious rhubarb, are not running to submit to God’s rule. People who are troubled with talk of election and predestination have an incorrect view of the nature of man and the nature of God. Men are not crawling over one another to get into the kingdom of heaven and God is not standing outside with a stick, beating those poor willing souls away from the gates.

            God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden because He is God and because we are rebels. As the book of Romans has clearly illustrated, the shocking reality is not that God would dare allow rebels to suffer eternal punishment but that He would dare save any of us.

            Does this make sense to you? Does it make sense that this is God’s world and that He can do whatever He wants? Beware if it does. When you take this point of view you need to be ready to answer some questions. If God is indeed sovereign, every event in His world is subject to the scrutiny of the people in His world.

            How, for instance, do you answer the skeptic who asks you how you can believe in a God who would raise up wicked men like Herod the Great, Adolph Hitler and Osama bin Laden to kill so many innocent people? What kind of God would allow earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes to kill children? “If that is God, I choose not to believe in Him,” your unbelieving friends might say.

            You could take the current theological way of escape from hard questions and say that God has limited His knowledge of some future events. Redefining God’s attributes by giving Him this “openness” might make you think you are protecting His reputation from blame for events you cannot explain. But you can never satisfy a sinner whose heart is hard by cutting God down to the sinner’s level of understanding.

            There are some questions we can never answer. Can you be satisfied with that and still run to your Savior even when He has left you hurting and weak?

            The Gospel of Luke (13:1) records an instance where some men questioned Jesus about a horrible crime Pilate reportedly committed against some Galileans in the Temple. Jesus replied reminding them of yet another tragedy in which a tower fell and killed eighteen people. We cannot know why they asked Him about this but we can know what our response to such events needs to be. Jesus said that such events call us to repentance. Catastrophes are a reminder that our lives are short and unpredictable and that we are accountable to God. While men are shaking their fists at the Creator they should be kneeling in shame, pleading for forgiveness.

            So this begs the question: Do you want a God without a plan and without control over His creation? If He is not in charge, the alternative rulers deserve more fist-shaking than God is currently getting. Do you want a God Who chooses not to control nature or Who is surprised by the wicked plans of wicked men? When your unbelieving friends look at a sin-cursed world and seek to accuse God of wrongdoing, turn the tables like Jesus did. The burden is on them. Unless they repent they will perish in similar fashion.

            This is Paul’s argument in Romans nine. Man says, “That’s not fair.” God says, “Don’t ask for what’s fair.” Man says, “What about my free will?” God says, “What about my free will?”

            Consider some thoughts that may help you as you approach what has been called “the most neglected chapter in the Bible”:

            There are some things you can know for sure when you approach this difficult chapter:

1.   It does not contradict what the Bible says elsewhere. The Bible has proven itself immune to the charges of its critics. This does not mean that there are no difficult passages, only that those passages are part of a unified body of revelation from God.

2.   It presents God as He is, whether you like it or not. Romans nine does not seek to accommodate those who seek to create a lesser god.

3.   God is never confused or in error. Whenever there are charges of wrongdoing, God is never the defendant.

4.   It is possible to correctly understand the hard texts. Your confusion over circumstances or biblical texts does not change God’s character or His word. The emotions stirred by a difficult text should never determine your interpretation of that text. Your theology or system of belief must bend to the plain reading of any Scripture text, not vice versa.

5.   The safest action for hurting or confused people is to run into the presence of God, never away from Him.

The Ruler

Enough about the November election. Maybe you got your way and maybe you didn't. But it's over. Likewise that memorable event from your recent or distant past. Maybe you got your way and maybe you didn't. But it's over. 

People often define themselves by events of the past--good or bad. You are may perceive yourself a lifelong winner because you won that state championshship in high school or you may perceive yourself a lifelong victim because of that horrible abuse you endured as a child. You may consider a day bad because people (or your car) failed to meet your expectations or consider a day good because you got what you wanted. 

It is short-sighted to think joy is wrapped up in getting your way. When you start living this way you become a slave to your environment. Your emotions are controlled by everything from the weather to national elections. But if you follow Jesus Christ should your identity be found in him or in some event that happened in a sin-cursed world? It makes every difference to embrace the sovereignty of God when facing things you never would have chosen.

Read of the topsy-turvy life of Joseph in Genesis. He believed that the events in God's world--even the evil deeds of evil men--are sent by God to accomplish his good purposes. Joseph was hated and favored, falsely accused and promoted, made a slave and made a ruler. Yet his confession in Genesis 50:20 was, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

There are increasing levels of growth when you recognize that God is sovereign. I have observed this in counselees who wrestle with anger or bitterness. Anger and bitterness often spring from the belief that says, "I don't deserve this." So whether your spouse mistreats you or you fall on the ice, if you fail to see him in the trial you will just see an event or a person that is in the way of your happiness.

The first step in this growth is to acknowledge God's right to rule. He can do what he wants with you because he is God. He rules whether you acknowledge it or not, but seeing him as he is gives you the right persective on what you are going through. But you must do more than see him as he is.
A second step of growth in this recognition of God's absolute rule in your life is to submit to it. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, one of the most powerful kings who ever lived, endured seven years living as an animal. Most people would call that "bad." But God rules. Nebuchadnezzar was humbled at the end of that time and confessed, "For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation." God sent that hard time. Are you okay with that?

The final step of growth in this knowledge of God's sovereignty is to delight in it--even when you are hurting. After a vision of heaven that few have been privileged to see, the apostle Paul was given a "messenger of Satan," possibly some severe physical disability, to keep him humble. Even after praying for deliverance the Lord told Paul that grace is better that healing. Paul demonstrated more than an admission that God was in control (for you can say that and remain bitter). He showed more than a submission to God's control. Paul was actually able to delight in his hard times. He testified: "Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong."

What is it with you? Illness? Money trouble? Relationship problems? Lost your fight on a political issue? You do have responsibility in many areas, but in those areas beyond your control you need to find satisfaction that God meant it for your good and his glory.

Perseverance of the Saints: How God Demonstrates the Rescue

Finally, that doctrine called “Once Saved Always Saved,” right?

Not so fast. A common error in Christendom and Blogdom is to take off with a little bit of information on something we find distasteful and create a target that is easy to knock down. The biblical doctrine of Perseverance frequently falls prey to that kind of attack. Please don’t do that. Just listen before you jump to conclusions.

The first article from the Synod of Dordtrecht’s teaching on Perseverance of the Saints says:

Those whom God, according to His purpose, calls to the communion of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and regenerates by the Holy Spirit, He also delivers from the dominion and slavery of sin, though in this life He does not deliver them altogether form the body of sin and from the infirmities of the flesh.

The greatest number of arguments I have heard against the biblical doctrine of Perseverance find their foundation in anecdotes rather than Scripture. Most of us know people who made convincing professions of faith, even achieving leadership positions in the church only to abandon the faith by joining some cult or living immorally. Think Judas.

Maybe our trouble is that we assume “saved” means “claims to believe.” We rightly point out that people are either saved or lost with no middle ground, but some assume that people who appear saved and turn permanently away have lost their salvation. Arminian theology contends that men are saved and lost based on the choices of their free will. Please understand that this is more than semantics. Denying the doctrine of Perseverance guts the power of the cross to change sinners and enthrones the will of man.

Please hang with me here. We may differ on what it means to be “saved.” Paul told the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:18) that the message of the cross is “the power of God” to those of us who are being saved. He meant that the cross of Christ actually rescued people from the bondage of sin (Romans 6:1-7). The cross did more than provide a choice at a fork in the road for sinners. It delivered those for whom it was intended. Saved people do not possess entire practical sanctification but they are fundamentally different from lost people.

I pointed out in the article on “Limited Atonement” that salvation is not a miracle cure for a deadly disease available for those who are smart enough to take the treatment. It is a voice calling corpses in a graveyard to life (Ephesians 2:1). Those who are alive in Christ possess eternal life now (John 3:36; 5:24) based on the performance of Messiah instead of their own (2 Corinthians 5:21).

If you are an Arminian, we agree on at least one thing, my friend in Christ: We should not give the benefit of the doubt to professing believers who are living for the devil. You say they had it and lost it. I say they never had it. Jesus called people out of darkness into a new kingdom (Colossians 1:13-14) where the subjects of the King receive a new nature (2 Corinthians 5:17). Lordship salvation is the only kind of salvation. “Once saved always Saved” is better worded, “if saved, always saved.”

Those who have been bought by the blood of Christ are kept saved by the power of God and will persevere in the Christian faith (John 6:37; 10:27-29; 17:11; Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:13-14; Philippians 1:6; Hebrews 7:25; 1 Peter 1:3-5; Jude 24).

Jesus did not die to provide a potential salvation. The “plan of salvation” goes from foreknowledge all the way through glorification (Romans 8:28-39). We do not need to live in despair, thinking we have to whip up some works-based righteousness in order to stay in God’s family.

Believing this makes a difference in “real life” because we know it is possible to live differently by God’s grace. You live a holy life because you have been rescued from a horrible life (and death), not because you are afraid of losing your spot. Parents do not produce obedient children by the constant threat that they will be kicked out of the family if they do not measure up. We give them their family identity by loving them and disciplining them (See all of Hebrews 12). Believing in this completed work of salvation delivers us from fearing we have not met the expectations required to survive the judgment of God. It also delivers us from fearing the extra-biblical standards of church people.

Irresistible Grace: How God Applies the Rescue

Many years ago after an incident in which my minivan became hopelessly stuck on a frozen Wisconsin lake in February (long story, feel free to ask for details), I saw an illustration of an important biblical teaching. Preachers do that (look for illustrations, not drive on snowy lakes).

Back to the story. Through the darkness, the driver of a very powerful four-wheel-drive Chevy truck saw my overheated vehicle and drove through deep snow to rescue me. He hooked a chain to my chassis and dragged me to the main road that crossed the lake. I didn’t flag him down. I could say I cooperated, but my spinning wheels were useless until he dragged me to the place where my wheels could work.

The bottom line is this: my rescue was all about his decision to come and get me. My contribution to the process, if you call it a contribution, was being obviously in trouble.

Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). Why did he say that? He said that because he was pointing out (see more in verses 26-46) that God’s people will be saved at the time and by the means he has ordained. They will repent and believe, but even those are gifts. In other words, Jesus was articulating the doctrine that would later be called “Irresistible Grace”.

Many of those who oppose this doctrine do so because of a faulty caricature. They testify of their own resistance to the gospel’s call to repentance. People say, “If this is true, then why did I resist so long before I turned to Christ?”

Of course everyone resists God. Stephen spoke of this in Acts 7:51, as did Paul in Ephesians 4:30 and 1 Thessalonians 5:19. This is our nature. Total depravity, right? So then, spiritually dead people can only exercise faith when a work of God called “regeneration” frees their will. Faith comes after the new birth (John 1:11-14; John 3:3-8; Titus 3:4-5; 1 Peter 1:3, 23; 1 John 5:1). The Canons of Dordt used these words to defend this doctrine:

Moreover, when God carries out this good pleasure in his chosen ones, or works true conversion in them, he not only sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed to them outwardly, and enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, he also penetrates into the inmost being of man, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised. He infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant; he activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds.

So are we puppets, unwilling people dragged into the family of God? No more than Lazarus resisted coming forth from that tomb. No more than I fought the guy in the Chevy truck. The Canons of Dordt coupled this doctrine with Total Depravity:

…this divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and--in a manner at once pleasing and powerful--bends it back. As a result, a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit now begins to prevail where before the rebellion and resistance of the flesh were completely dominant. It is in this that the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists. Thus, if the marvelous Maker of every good thing were not dealing with us, man would have no hope of getting up from his fall by his free choice, by which he plunged himself into ruin when still standing upright.

Because man is spiritually dead, only a gracious work of God can change his condition. This work, then, does not force unwilling people into the kingdom but makes unwilling people willing. This is what happened to Saul on the road to Damascus. It is what God did when he granted Gentiles faith. It was the experience of Lydia, whose heart God opened.

The suggestion that this doctrine is anti-evangelistic cannot stand up against the facts. Evangelist John R. Rice wrote, “Satan uses this doctrine of ‘Irresistible Grace’ to lull Christians to disobedience and lack of compassion and burden to get people saved.” In reality, believing this promotes aggressive evangelism. We do not need manipulative altar calls, a great band or funny cartoons to woo more people to salvation. God uses means and his chosen means of rescuing sinners is the preaching of the gospel. Ours is not to dress it up but to spread it thick. As one preacher said, “We stand in the service of the all-sovereign God of the universe whose words do not fall to the ground, whose purposes must be accomplished and whose people will be saved.”

Limited Atonement: How God Secured the Rescue

All true Christians believe in Limited Atonement.

Is that a provocative introduction? It is true. Just relax. I'm not saying that only Calvinists can be saved. I am trying to get you to read a little bit further into this article so you get the whole story. It is far too easy to build a straw man caricature of some prune-faced Puritan dressed in black squashing the zeal of a young evangelist by saying, “If God wants to save the heathen he can do it without our help.” Some might picture a poor sinner crawling in repentance to the austere god of the Calvinist, who refuses the seeker because he is not on “the list.”

In my opinion this is the most misunderstood of the five points of Calvinism. It is the one I resisted for many years as a pastor and Bible teacher because I misunderstood its meaning (and had the prune-faced Puritan in my cartoon bubble).

Many people struggle with this particular doctrine because of the word "limited." The very word makes it sound like Jesus’ death was not very powerful. They ask legitimate questions about “world” texts like John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2. They wonder how Calvinists reconcile limited atonement with texts that say God is not willing that any should perish.

The meaning of words is "limited" by context. “World” does not always mean every person on earth. If so, Caesar Augustus taxed the entire planet instead of just the Roman Empire (Luke 2:1). Likewise, when Peter told us that God is patient, waiting for us to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9), he was speaking to believers (2 Peter 1:1-2), not the world.

Some confusion may be cleared up by reading the original statements (translated into English) of the Synod of Dort:

This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.[1]

The canons of Dort acknowledged the universality of the cross. The message of the gospel is universal in scope even though the ultimate effectiveness of the gospel message is not. We have been commanded to carry this message to the ends of the earth, but not everyone will be saved. Even if we unleash to the ends of the earth all the best resources and servants in the Body of Christ, only a remnant of the dead will come to life. The power of the gospel does not reside in those who bear it but in the one who bore our sins. To put it another way, the death of Christ was sufficient to cover the sins of the world but efficient only for the elect.

While it kind of messes up our acrostic (no one looks for tupips in the spring", we might better understand this doctrine if we use the term “purposeful” instead of “limited.” I made that introductory statement because, among Christians, we all limit the atonement. The Calvinist says the atonement is limitless in its power to save those for whom it was intended but limited in its scope because God is only going to save a few of the rebels who deserve the lake of fire. The Arminian says the atonement is unlimited in its scope but limited in its power because it is subject to the free will of those who decide to accept it or reject it.

Simply put, someone who believes in limited atonement believes Jesus Christ came to earth on a mission to rescue his people. His people were purchased from every tribe, tongue and nation (Revelation 5:9), nations that deserve eternal punishment and are incapable of escaping from the bondage of their sin (see my earlier article on Total Depravity). Salvation is not a miracle cure for a deadly disease available for those who are smart enough to take the treatment. It is a voice calling corpses in a graveyard to life (Ephesians 2:1).

To stick with biblical pictures:

· God did not go down to Egypt to rescue the Egyptians (Exodus 3:7-8). The rescue of the people of God from bondage was not a partial rescue but a complete release. So it is with the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. He did not die for anyone smart enough to choose him. Like the high priest in Israel, he took names to the cross. The people for whom this work was intended are saved completely.

· Messiah was given the name Jesus (salvation) because he came to save his people (Matthew 1:21).

· Jesus said his sheep hear his voice (John 10:27-29). These are the ones to whom he gives eternal life. No mention here of what the other sheep get.

· Paul told the Ephesian elders to tend the flock purchased with the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28). The people who confess Jesus as Lord done so because they were given to the Son by the Father (John 6:44; Acts 13:48; Acts 16:14). They are an organized group of sheep needing leadership.

· Christ gave himself for his bride with a holy end in mind (Ephesians 5:25-27). No mention of him giving himself for someone else's bride.

Believing this makes a difference in “real life” because it brings the believer to see that Jesus’ death secured a complete rescue for us. The Savior did not simply die to make salvation possible for all smart sinners. He died to secure his people eternal life, from foreknowledge to glorification (Romans 8:28-39). This leaves them continually bowing before the throne, thanking him for his grace and carrying to every creature the powerful message that pierces the impenetrable barrier of death.

---

[1] Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, “The Canons of Dordt,” http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html, accessed 5-26-08

Unconditional Election: How God Planned the Rescue

Embracing what the Bible says about the nature of man described in the previous article (totally depraved, spiritually dead) must leave us asking, “Who then can be saved?” The answer of the Calvinists goes something like this: “For his own good purposes, God has actively chosen a specific number of wrath-deserving sinners to escape judgment, experience his salvation and be transformed into the image of his Son.” This doctrine leaves none of us the right to become the hero of our personal salvation testimony.

Underlying the doctrine of unconditional election is an emphasis on the free will of God rather than the free will of man. In other words, God could have justly condemned the entire race. As the Canons of Dordt said:

Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. As the apostle says: The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God (Rom. 3:19), All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), and The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).

The 20th question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism reads, “Did God leave all mankind to die in sin and misery?" The answer reads:

From all eternity and merely because it pleased Him God chose some to have everlasting life. These He freed from sin and misery by covenant of grace and brought them to salvation by a redeemer.[1]

Unconditional election leaves man with no role in God's choice. That is why I add “For his own good purposes” to my definition. Since the Bible is so full of references to divine election, those who are uncomfortable with the doctrine as defined above prefer to say that God foreknew events and chose based on that knowledge. They say God looked ahead and, seeing the future faith of some people, chose them on that basis. If I turned to Christ on a certain day I might say that God saw this ahead of time and chose me based on my choice. This is called “conditional election,” one of the five points of the Arminian Remonstrance.

The misguided words of the contemporary altar call song that says, “If the truth will ever set you free depends on you,” shackle the nail-scarred hands and place the key in mine. Without trying to sound haughty (not consistent for someone believing the doctrine of total depravity), these distinctions should make it clear why Calvinists believe Arminianism is a man-centered theology. Aside from making the sovereign God learn something, conditional election as it is defended by our Arminian friends cannot stand up against an abundance of biblical evidence:

• God’s choice was not based on anything in man (Romans 9:11-12; 2 Timothy 1:8-9).
• God foreknew people, not events (Romans 8:29).
• God chose the means by which people would be saved (Romans 10:14-15).
• God’s choice was for his own good pleasure (Luke 12:32).
• God’s people will be saved (John 6:37).
• God’s people will be fruitful (John 15:16).
• God’s glory must be the end result (Ephesians 1:3-14).
• God’s messengers will have success (Acts 18:10; 2 Timothy 2:10).

Objections to this teaching and responses:

1. “If this is true, some people will never have a chance to be saved.” When the fairness issue is raised, it is imperative that we understand the holiness of God and the depravity of man. Men do not suffer wrath because they are non-elect, but because they replace God (Romans 1).
2. “If this is true, it is a waste to send missionaries.” This is an unbiblical application of a biblical doctrine. It is disobedient to not preach the gospel. The gospel is the means God has chosen to bring the elect to himself.
3. “If this is true, it violates man’s free will.” From what is man’s will free? What about God’s free will? Some people picture the God of the Calvinist like a heavenly bouncer checking ID cards at the gates of heaven and turning away the non-elect who wish to come in. The doctrine of unconditional election properly understood yields no such picture. Apart from a work of God's sovereign grace, sinners have no “will” to go to heaven. A security detail is no more needed to bar the gates of heaven to the totally depraved than one is needed to keep fire out of water.

Believing this makes a difference in “real life” because, like the doctrine of total depravity, it is pride-crushing. The identity of the believer is bound up in the eternal choices of God. I can take no more credit for turning from my sin to the Savior than could a man who jumped from a burning building to a firefighters’ rescue net on the ground. If my identity is wrapped up in my temporal choices, the instability of this temporal world can mess up my identity. If my identity is wrapped up in God's sovereign work on behalf of my soul, my life is hidden with Christ in God. I do not live but Christ lives in me.

---

[1] The Westminster Shorter Catechism in Modern English, p. 8, © 1986 The WestShor Group

Total Depravity: Why Man Needs the Rescue

A theological controversy erupted in the Netherlands in the 17th century. Nearly 50 years after the death of theologian John Calvin in 1564, a significant number of Reformed ministers, led by University of Leiden theologian Jacob Arminius, had abandoned much of the theology embraced by those who called themselves "Calvinists." The followers of Arminius had sought to distance themselves from the Calvinists and, following Jacob's death, laid out their differences in a document called the Remonstrance (1610). The controversy precipitated a church council in Dordrecht during which church leaders sought to define what they believed about salvation in response to the Remonstrance. The result was the Canons of Dort, a five-point response to the Arminians. These five points have been organized into an acrostic that spells out the word tulip (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints).

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

Simply put: The fall of Adam has rendered the entire human race completely corrupt and powerless to change its situation.

Scriptural support: While we should not build major doctrines on isolated texts, a good summary of the doctrine of total depravity can be found in Ephesians 2:1-10. This text describes the natural man as dead, morally corrupt, under the influence of the devil, naturally deserving the wrath of God and with no works to commend him to God apart from a work of grace. Scripture regularly describes the evil of the heart of man (Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:23) and the work of God in changing that heart (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 36:26; 2 Corinthians 5:17). The spiritually dead man has as much power to come forth from the grave as did Lazarus in John 11.

The doctrine of total depravity does not teach that man is as bad as he could be. The natural man can do much “good” on a human level. The trouble is that a totally depraved man cannot do the ultimate good: choose God.

The doctrine of total depravity does teach that the fall of Adam has affected every area of man's being. Certainly it affects his morality (Romans 3:10-12), his intellect (Romans 1:21-22) and his will (1 Corinthians 2:14), which will Augustine and Luther believed was in bondage.

Objections to this teaching and responses:

1. The fall of Adam did not extend to the will of man, which is still free. This statement is without Scriptural support. As a friend in ministry says to those who insist man's will is free: "I'll give you free will if you give me total depravity." What good is a free will that always chooses a sinful course?
2. The offer of the gospel is not legitimate if men are incapable of responding to it. But God uses means. We might likewise argue that Lazarus needed to obey the order to a come out of the grave in order to come back to life. Romans 10 is clear about the necessity of believing the gospel. Romans 10:14 is also clear that people will not believe without hearing the voice of God (NASB).
3. If man needs regeneration before he can exert faith toward God, he is nothing but a puppet. We are moral beings and legitimately accountable to a holy God and have God to praise if he straightens our corrupt wills. As the Canons of Dordt says it, “…this divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and—in a manner at once pleasing and powerful—bends it back.”

Does believing this really make any difference in life? Yes. Believing this makes a difference in “real life” because it is pride-crushing. People who have fled to the Savior because they have seen their own corruption and helplessness cannot help but live lives of humility—at least when they remember the grave from which they have been rescued. Husbands who have embraced the doctrine of total depravity must not only recognize their need to humble themselves before God daily but also the need to humble themselves before their wives daily. Parents who have embraced the doctrine of total depravity know that their responsibility is not to manipulate the behavior of their children but to minister the gospel to their children. Evangelists who have embraced the doctrine of total depravity know that Muslims sinners are no worse than "Christian" sinners. The pit of sinfulness is inescapable for us all and the ground at the foot of the cross is level. We are not skilled practitioners giving medicine to sick people. We are messengers through whom the voice of God calls the dead to life.

God-Centered Theology Is Practical

In my next five blog entries I plan to defend what are called the doctrines of grace: the historic “five points of Calvinism.” I hope to do this without trying to belittle those disciples of our Master who disagree with me. My purpose is to clear up some confusion and present a God-centered theology as opposed to Arminianism, which I consider a man-centered theology. I also want to point out that what you believe about God (theology) determines the way you will live. Simply put, "every counseling problem is a theological problem."

There is a good deal of misunderstanding about the beliefs of those of us who consider ourselves "Reformed." It may surprise you to know that most of us believe in aggressive global evangelism like the Calvinistic William Carey, the father of modern missions. Most of us engage in evangelistic preaching like Calvinists George Whitefield and Charles Haddon Spurgeon. We do not encourage believers to live as they please since they are "eternally secure" nor do we apply our belief in the sovereignty of God by disowning the power of prayer.

Does it really matter? Does this have anything to do with real life? Isn't this blog devoted to biblical counseling issues? Read the articles carefully and hopefully you'll answer all three questions with a hearty "Yes" like I do.

Do not be impatient today with those who have not yet discovered what you learned yesterday.

Warning: this entry is, without apology, a theology lesson. What does theology have to do with depression, self-mutilation, fear, anger and marriage problems? Everything. What you believe is more important than what you do because what you believe determines what you do. This biblical counselor believes every counseling problem is a theological problem.

People captive to sinful habits are active worshippers at the wrong altar. The false deities of people in sin promise to give them their good feelings without consequences. These idols offer control and ease and never send things that hurt. In short, people in sin only love gods that are less than sovereign.

Now the theology lesson. I am a monergist. That is, I recognize the biblical teaching that salvation is all of God rather than a cooperative effort between God and man. I believe that regeneration is what produces faith in us (John 1:13; 3:3; 1 Peter 1:3) and that both grace and faith fall into the category of "and that not of yourselves" (Ephesians 2:8-10). For lack of a simpler word, that makes me a Calvinist (see a little chunk of my Romans 8 exposition for a biblical description).

It has been a refreshing discovery for me to finally realize that my salvation from start to finish is a work of God. My delight is increasingly found in the author and finisher of my faith instead of in my great choice. My service is increasingly motivated by the desire to see the purposeful work of Christ on the cross bear its certain fruit in the lives of those who are called to faith when I preach the gospel. I have not only learned what it is to rest in Christ, I have learned the right motivation to work hard for Christ.

Having said all that, the balance of this entry is going to chastise some of my theological allies. It is even going to chastise me. Here is a hard question: Do people who, apart from grace, are empty-headed fools have any business saying "Raca" or "Thou fool" (see Matthew 5:22)?

Of all the issues I face in the counseling room, the most destructive is pride. Those of us who embrace the Doctrines of Grace are not in danger of being right. We are in danger of being proud that we are right.

We Calvinists know how to pronounce (and some of us can even correctly spell) Arminian with a tone of disdain. My trouble is this: how can a pride-crushing theology produce pride in the people who embrace it? If the grace of God alone brought me to faith and I cannot boast in the quality of my faith or the smartness of my choice, how can I take any credit for discovering the system of theology that recognizes those truths? "Proud Calvinist" is an oxymoron.

Please remember that your system of theology is more than what you claim to believe. You can answer the delightful question 11 from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, saying, "God's providence is His completely holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing every creature and every action" and then live a life that proves you would rather not have a sovereign God tell you how to love your wife, submit to your husband or manage your money.

I do not write these things because I have somehow won this battle myself. Let me take this instruction as I give it. Do not be impatient today with those who have not yet discovered what you learned yesterday. Those who celebrate the free will of man to the exclusion of celebrating the free will of God are in error, but they are not necessarily the enemy. They may be deceived by the enemy.

Yes, there are those who need to be directly confronted. Sharp rebuke may often be in order, but being quarrelsome is never in order. Paul taught Timothy another way of dealing with error: "with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will" (2 Timothy 2:25-26).

Here is my challenge to you who have been released from the bondage of a man-centered theology:

1. Live life in your home and in your workplace like one who has been rescued from slavery and set free to serve.


2. Take as much credit for your system of theology as you do for your salvation.


3. Present the glorious truths that humble you before the sovereign God with the gentleness that logically springs from your theology.