Timothy R. Nichols received his most significant biblical education from his father, Rev. Edd Nichols. He went on to spend three years at Florida Bible College, and completed his B.S. at Southeastern Bible College in 1997. After a brief interlude, Tim continued his education at Chafer Theological Seminary, graduating with a Th.M. in 2004. Tim presently ministers in Hemet, CA, and is an instructor at Chafer Theological Seminary in Orange, CA. His email address is tnich77@yahoo.com.
Introduction
Calvinism has a demonstrated tendency to take an extra step beyond the biblical evidence. The Bible says the unregenerate are unable to please God; Calvinists infer from this that the unregenerate are unable to believe. The biblical evidence shows that believers are selected for glorification and deliverance from Tribulation wrath; Calvinists infer that unbelievers are selected for regeneration. The Scripture says that believers ought to walk worthy of their high calling; Calvinists infer that believers will inevitably do so.
One defense against the Calvinist position is the simple fact that the biblical evidence does not go far enough to support the system fully. Since Scripture is sufficient for both faith and practice, one should not accept a system that has insufficient support from Scripture. Another defense is the argument that the passages adduced to support Calvinism do not say what Calvinists suppose they say. Both of these defenses are essentially negative in character. They do not necessarily prove any position; they are designed only to disprove a Calvinist position. This article will focus on a third type of defense: an affirmative case for a different view, framed in its own—not Calvinist—terms.
As long as Free-Grace theologians continue to frame their position as non-Arminian anti-Calvinism, they will be a step behind. Scripture does not frame its discussion of soteriology in terms of the five points of Calvinism; thus, there is no reason why we ought to, if our presentation is to mirror Scripture. At best, TULIP [2] presents Free Grace with a useful foil, a heuristic for communicating where we stand in relation to other beliefs. However, we need to make a positive case as well as a negative case. While TULIP may be a perfect foil for the negative case, there is no reason to prefer it for the positive one.
A Third Position, Not a Mediate Position
The idea of not framing the Free Grace position in terms of Arminianism and Calvinism only makes sense, of course, if the following propositions are true:
- Free Grace is neither Arminian nor Calvinist.
- Free Grace is not a mediate position between the two “extremes” of Arminianism and Calvinism.
Calvinism and Arminianism share other premises that Free Grace advocates often reject. Arminians and Calvinists both accept the idea that unregenerate man is constitutionally unable to believe the gospel (although Arminians go on to suggest that prevenient grace rescues man from this position). A number of Free Grace advocates hold that unregenerate man is constitutionally able to believe the gospel (for reasons discussed below). Arminians and Calvinists both hold that scripture teaches individual, soteriological election to eternal life; they differ only on the basis of that election. A number of Free Grace advocates reject the idea that election to eternal life is individual at all. There are other examples as well. The point in cataloging these differences is to demonstrate that the Free Grace position described in this article, is not a mediate position that falls somewhere on the continuum between Arminianism and Calvinism. It is not between them—it is other than they are, a legitimate third position.
Total Inability and Irresistible Grace
The Nature of Irresistible Grace
The nature of Irresistible Grace is such that if Total Inability is true (i.e., unregenerate man cannot believe the gospel), then Irresistible Grace must be true. If unregenerate man cannot believe but can only resist God’s saving grace, then he can only be saved by a grace against which his resistance means nothing, i.e., by an irresistible grace. Consequently, in order to clear the way for an attack on Irresistible Grace, one must first dispense with Total Inability. A full treatment of the subject is beyond the scope of this paper, so this discussion will address a single passage that makes a determinative case against Total Inability.
Ephesians 2:1–9 and the Case Against Total Inability
The following six sets of syllogisms set forth the logic of a particular strand of Paul’s argument in the text of Ephesians 2:1–9. The conclusions develop from the eight points of data it contains. The biblical case for these points is solid; moreover, the degree of agreement in the commentary literature on these eight points of data is nothing short of remarkable. Nearly everyone agrees. However, the conclusions which necessarily follow from these eight points are rarely acknowledged. (The data points are marked with an asterisk.)
1–1* All believers were once dead.
1–2* Dead refers to spiritual death.
1–3 Therefore, all believers were once spiritually dead.
2–1* All believers were made alive.
2–2* Made alive refers to spiritual life (regeneration).
2–3 Therefore, all believers received spiritual life (regeneration).
3–1* By grace you are saved (2:5) is parenthetical to made alive (and raised up and seated).
3–2* The parenthetical relation indicates that made alive (and raised up and seated) is equated with, or a subset of, by grace you are saved.
3–3 Therefore, made alive (and raised up and seated) is equated with, or a subset of, saved (2:5).
4–1 Made alive (and raised up and seated) is equated with, or a subset of, saved (2:5).
4–2* By grace you are saved (2:8) resumes the topic of discussion from 2:5.
4–3 Therefore, made alive (and raised up and seated) is equated with, or a subset of, by grace you are saved (2:8).
5–1* Through faith indicates the instrumental cause3 of by grace you are saved (2:8).
5–2 Made alive (and raised up and seated) is equated with, or a subset of, by grace you are saved (2:8).
5–3 Therefore, through faith is the instrumental cause of made alive (and raised up and seated).
6–1 Through faith is the instrumental cause of made alive (and raised up and seated).
6–2 Instrumental cause necessarily precedes its effect.
6–3 Therefore, faith precedes being made alive (regeneration).Defining spiritual death in terms of inability to believe falls utterly flat in this passage. Sadly, the vast majority of Reformed commentators agree with the data at issue (the asterisked points above) and yet fail to draw the correct conclusion. This passage removes Total Inability from consideration, because it says plainly that dead men must believe in order to be made alive. Nor do Arminians emerge totally unscathed. While Paul does not directly refute prevenient grace in this passage, neither does he feel the need to adduce the concept to explain how dead men could believe. For Paul, the idea that dead men believe requires no further comment.
Grace Resistible, but Unresisted: Selected Passages
With Total Inability out of the way, it is now possible to address Irresistible Grace directly. As discussed in the introduction, three possible avenues appear:
- Defensive: to demonstrate that Scripture does not fully support Irresistible Grace
- Defensive: to demonstrate that the passages that are thought to support Irresistible Grace do not in fact do so
- Offensive: to demonstrate the truth of a competing view
“Lest They Believe”: Matthew 13:19 // Mark 4:15 // Luke 8:12 and 2 Corinthians 4:3–4
The parable of the sower is much debated among commentators and theologians, but most of the debate centers on the disposition of the stony and thorny soils. [4] Virtually everyone acknowledges that the first soil, the hard ground by the wayside, indicates an unbeliever—and so it does. Jesus’ explanation of the hard ground appears in all three synoptic Gospels:
When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. [5] (Matthew 13:19)
And these are the ones by the wayside where the word is sown. When they hear, Satan comes immediately and takes away the word that was sown in their hearts. (Mark 4:15)
Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. (Luke 8:12)When the “wayside ground” person hears the word, he does not immediately believe. In fact, Matthew tells us that he does not understand it—and of course one cannot believe a proposition one does not understand. [6] But most pertinent for the present discussion is Satan’s response to their lack of understanding. Does he sit back, relax, and celebrate the fact that dead men are too fallen to grasp the gospel? He does not. He comes and snatches the word out of their hearts. Mark adds that he does this immediately. Why does he do this? Luke tells us: Lest, by believing, they be saved. [7] Satan, thus, treats men as though they are able to believe—indeed, as though they will believe—if they are sufficiently exposed to the Word of God. Accordingly, he does what he can to limit their exposure. This ought not to surprise us, because faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. [8]
Paul presents a similar picture in 2 Corinthians 4:3–4:
But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in those who are perishing, in whom the god of this age has blinded their minds—the unbelievers—lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. [9]Again, Satan blinds (i.e., veils) the minds of the unbelievers, in order that the light of the gospel not shine on them. It is worthwhile to consider the image Paul has chosen. There is no sense in veiling the eyes of a blind man. The whole point of veiling unbelievers’ minds is that they are constitutionally able to see.
Resisting the Lord: Romans 1, 9–11 and Acts 9:5
Despite Satan’s blinding “ministry,” no unbeliever will be able to claim on Judgment Day that his unbelief is the Devil’s fault. All three of the Christian’s enemies, the world, the flesh and the Devil, oppose the Lord and His Word, therefore unbelievers (in their flesh) resist the truth on their own account, as well as with the Devil’s help.
Paul bases his indictment of the heathen in Romans 1:18–32 on the fact that they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. As his case unfolds, it is apparent that he is not claiming the heathen are damned because of what they do not know; rather, they are damned based on the fact that they reject facts they do know—that God exists, that He is powerful and worthy of worship, and that the creation is not worthy to be worshipped instead of the Creator. Man does resist God’s revelation of Himself; he does so regularly and, too often, successfully. When he does this, God gives him over to his sins.
Special revelation is also resisted regularly. In Romans 9–11, Paul discusses Israel’s position in God’s plan during the present age, and comments in 11:28: Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. Israel continues to resist the gospel, as they resisted all the prophets before Christ. [10] To take a particular case, Saul of Tarsus resisted the gospel, even when it was difficult for him to do so. We have this from no less an authority than Christ Himself, speaking to Saul on the Damascus Road: It is hard for you to kick against the goads. [11] Of course, Saul’s resistance had ceased when he asked, Who are you, Lord? It is noteworthy that this occurred before he believed (i.e., while he was still spiritually dead), because he did not yet know what (or in whom) to believe. However, he was ready to believe whatever he was told—he was through kicking against the goads.
The Light That Shines: 2 Corinthians 4:5–6
Keeping Paul’s conversion experience in mind, return to 2 Corinthians 4. In the preceding context, Paul has explained that Satan blinds the minds of the unbelieving by veiling them from the gospel so that the light would not shine on them. In verses 5–6, Paul comments on what happened to himself and his believing audience when they came to Christ:
For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.This is a theological retrospective on coming to faith. Despite Satan’s best efforts, God has turned up the intensity of the light, penetrating the veil and shining the light into their hearts. Paul does not comment on how that happened in this passage; he seems content to assert the fact that it did happen.
Grace Resisted and Unresisted: John 6:22–71 [12]
Scene: a synagogue in Capernaum, the day after the feeding of the five thousand. The crowds have crossed the Sea of Galilee searching for Jesus, who miraculously fed them barley loaves and fish the day before. They would have made Him their king right then and there, but Jesus slipped away; then crossed the Sea of Galilee at night. The crowds arrive in Capernaum the next day, seeking Jesus. When they find Him, they ask Him when He arrived in Capernaum. Rather than answering their question, Jesus challenges their motives for seeking Him:
Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him. [13]Jesus’ Diagnosis. Jesus’ diagnosis of the crowd is that they are seeking Him for physical gratification, not because they have a spiritual hunger. He challenges them to seek the means to eternal life rather than the satisfaction of their physical hunger. The crowd responds to Jesus, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
At first glance, it may appear that the crowd has had a change of heart. Initially, they were seeking to fill their bellies, but now it seems they are interested in doing works for God. However, this is unlikely. In the following verses, they attempt to manipulate the Lord into repeating the miracle of the preceding day so that they can gratify their hunger. Throughout this passage, their agenda does not change.
In light of that, the best way of understanding the genitive construction τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ is as a subjective genitive: the works God does. The crowd is asking for the ability to work miracles. Jesus has pointed out their reason for interest in Him: He fed them. They respond by suggesting that He teach them how to perform the trick. They want to know how to do the works God does. If they can perform the miracle for themselves, they do not need to seek Jesus when they are hungry. Jesus responds that the work God does is them believing in the One He sent. [14]
Still intent on getting a meal, the crowd seeks to manipulate Jesus into working another miracle by asking for a sign, in order that they may see it and believe in Him. They further hint that providing a repeat performance of the previous day would be a good sign: Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ Obviously, this is a manipulation and not a sincere request. If providing a miraculous meal were a sufficient sign to induce them to believe, they would all have believed the day before and they would not require another sign now.
Jesus is not interested in gratifying their flesh. He responds that Moses did not give the true bread from heaven, because the Father gives the true bread of God, i.e., the One who comes from heaven and gives life to the world. In other words, the “bread” they should be seeking is a person, not a loaf, but they are so fixated on getting another meal that they miss the point. They ask for the “bread of God” always, still thinking of it as a loaf, not a person.
Making the Point. Jesus now makes His point inescapably clear:
I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day. [15]Jesus tells them that He is the life-giving bread He has been telling them about. He tells them that if they come to Him (i.e., believe on Him), they will be satisfied, but He knows that they do not believe even though they have seen Him (and the miracles He does). Even though they do not believe, all those whom the Father gives to Christ will come to (i.e., believe in) Him, and when they come, they will be secure. The ground for that security is not just Jesus’ will, but the Father’s will, which Jesus will perform: the Father assures that none of those He gives to Christ will be lost; all will have eternal life and be resurrected on the last day.
Jesus’ response reads very much like an explanation of the crowd’s unbelief: they do not believe in Jesus because the Father did not give them to Jesus. At this point, one begins to wonder who these people are who are given to Jesus by the Father, and why the crowd is not so given. Reformed theologians are ready with an answer: those given are the elect, whom God has chosen for Himself and who will inevitably come to Him because He brings them. The next interchange, however, shows that this is not the case.
The Jews do not like hearing Jesus call Himself the bread from heaven. Because they know His human parents, they do not believe that He also has divine origins. Jesus responds by rebuking their complaints and then offers further commentary on their unbelief. No one, Jesus says, is able to come to (i.e., believe in) Him, unless the Father draws him—but the one who comes will have resurrection. Jesus then says something crucial to understanding this whole passage:
It is written in the prophets, “And they shall all be taught by God.” Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. [16]Understanding this verse is critical. The Old Testament quotation comes from Isaiah 54:13. The context is a description of millennial blessing on Israel: the people who are taught by God are the children of the Second Coming generation of Israel. Why does Jesus quote this passage here? The Second Coming generation will welcome the Messiah—they will be rightly related to Him, and to the Father. In light of the prophetic correlation between the right relationship with the Father and the right relationship with the Messiah, Jesus argues that those who have been rightly related to the Father, i.e., those who have heard and learned from the Father, will also believe in Jesus, the Messiah. [17] Thus, Jesus’ explanation of the crowd’s unbelief is that they have failed to learn from the Father; had they learned, the Father would have drawn them to Him, and they would have believed. Since they have failed to learn from the Father, they are not drawn and, thus, cannot believe. Thus while the drawing is particular, the opportunity to be drawn is universal.
What is Drawing? A brief consideration of the usage of the word ελκω, “draw,” is in order at this point. The vast majority of the uses of ελκω in the NT and the LXX involve movement on the part of the thing being drawn. If a man ties a rope around a four-ton boulder and pulls on the rope, but the boulder doesn’t move, can he really say that the boulder is being drawn toward him? He cannot. This is exactly the pattern of usage found in John 21:6: the disciples were unable to draw the net into the boat because it had so many fish. The passage does not say they drew it and it did not come; it says they were unable to draw it. However, when they reached the shore, Simon Peter went and drew the net onto land. The context of John 6:44, in which the crowd’s failure to respond properly to the Father makes it impossible for them to believe in the Son, suggests that John has the same sense of ελκω in mind here. The drawing contemplated here is not universal. [18] it is what happens after someone responds properly to the Father, and thus, it involves activity by the Father to bring that person to the Son, and cooperation (nonresistance, at least) by the person being drawn. It is also possible that the Father’s drawing, and someone learning from the Father, are descriptions of the same event from two different points of view. In this latter case, again, movement by the person being drawn is implied.
Conclusion and Aftermath of the Bread of Life Discourse. After diagnosing the crowd’s failure to learn from and, therefore, to be drawn by, the Father, Jesus goes on to note that hearing and learning from the Father is not the same thing as seeing the Father: only Jesus has seen the Father, and those who believe in Jesus have eternal life. Unlike those who ate the manna and died, those who partake of Jesus’ flesh, which He gives for the world, will live forever.
The Jews, with their minds still on their bellies, misunderstand Jesus to be talking about cannibalism. Jesus does not speak plainly to them, but continues to hammer on the metaphor: those who partake of His flesh and blood, who feed on Him, will live because of Him, even as He lives because of the Father.
Jesus’ disciples find this discourse very hard to accept, and He does nothing to alleviate the pressure they feel. Instead, he points out that, although the subject of his origin and coming sacrifice is difficult, actually seeing it come to fruition—seeing the Son of Man ascend to heaven—will be more difficult still. He then offers them some encouragement: the Spirit gives life, while the flesh gives no profit. The message Jesus gives, He tells them, is Spirit and life. (Thus, no matter how hard it may be to accept, it will be worthwhile.) But, He notes, some even among the disciples do not believe. In an editorial aside, John tells us that Jesus made this statement because He knew from the beginning who did not believe, and who would betray Him. Jesus then adds, Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father. [19] Here again, he is dealing with unbelief, with the reasons that some do not come to Him. This summarizes His previous discourse with essentially the same message: correct relationship with the Father is the gatekeeper for correct relationship with the Son.
This particular discourse proves to be a decisive barrier even for many of the disciples: from this time they no longer walk with Him. Jesus asks the twelve if they want to leave as well, but Peter responds that they have nowhere else to go, because Jesus has the message of life and they have believed and known that He is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Jesus responds that Peter is not quite speaking for the whole group: although Jesus handpicked the twelve, one of them is a devil. John editorially adds that Jesus is speaking of Judas Iscariot.
In the bread of life discourse, Jesus diagnoses the unbelieving crowd’s reason for failing to believe Him: they have already failed to learn from the Father. By contrast, all those who do hear and learn from the Father do come to Jesus. In a series of parallel expressions, they are described as given by the Father to the Son, drawn by the Father to the Son, and granted by the Father to come to the Son. Thus, the passage affords a picture of two kinds of people: those who resist God’s gracious revelation and are therefore unable to stomach further revelation, and those who, having believed the light they are given, are drawn to Christ. This is not irresistible grace—it is resistible grace that some resist, and others do not.
Conclusion
The doctrine of Irresistible Grace depends heavily, if not entirely, on the doctrine of Total Inability. Total Inability cannot stand the test of Ephesians 2:1–9, which demonstrates that spiritually dead men must believe in order to be regenerated. The parable of the sower and 2 Corinthians 4 carry the argument one step further by establishing that unbelievers are constitutionally able to believe the gospel. At this point, Irresistible Grace stands on very shaky ground indeed, for if dead men are able to believe the gospel, why should saving grace be irresistible?
Romans 1 and Acts 9 add further depth to the picture by showing that men regularly resist God’s revelation of Himself, but a man who ceases resisting can believe once he has sufficient information. John 6 contributes a picture of unbelievers who, having resisted prior revelation, are unable to come to Christ, and believers who, having responded positively to prior revelation, are brought by the Father to Christ—not because they are unable to resist, but because they do not resist.
Thus, God places His revelation before man, and when any man ceases resisting this revelation, God grants more; ultimately, those who allow themselves to be borne along by the light God shines on their hearts are drawn, and come, to Christ. This is not by works but through the faith that comes as a result of revelation through God’s world and His Word.
Notes
- This paper was originally presented at the Chafer Theological Seminary Teaching Pastors’ Conference, March 10, 2005, in Santa Ana, CA.
- TULIP is an acronym for the five points of Calvinism: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints..
- It may be helpful to distinguish the terms instrumental cause and effectual cause. An effectual cause brings about an effect by its own power; an instrumental cause brings about an effect by another’s power. For example, when someone flips a light switch, resulting in the lights coming on, flipping the switch is the instrumental cause; the electricity is the effectual cause. In Paul’s discussion here, grace is set forth as the effectual cause of salvation, and faith, as the instrumental cause.
- For an excellent treatment of this issue, see Brad McCoy, “The Parable of the Sower,” CTS Journal 5 (July–September 1999): 2–13.
- All Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version (Nashville: Nelson, 1997), unless otherwise noted.
- People often respond to this line of reasoning by saying, “But we believe in the Trinity, and we don’t claim to understand it.” This objection trades on two different uses of the word understand in English: understanding a proposition versus understanding how a proposition can be true. We believe that there is one God who exists in three distinct but unified, coequal, coeternal persons. We understand the content of that proposition and believe it. We say that we do not understand the Trinity because we do not understand how all the parts of the proposition can be true at the same time. Thus, we understand and believe certain things about the Trinity, but we do not understand how all those things can be true at once.
- Author’s translation.
- Rom. 10:17.
- Author’s translation.
- Acts 7:2–53.
- Acts 9:5.
- This section will contain quite a bit of free paraphrase and condensation, but borrows wording from the New King James Version where it seems appropriate.
- John 6:26b–27.
- There is no question that in John 6:29, believing is work. That is what the passage says. The question is, whose work is it? Is belief a divine work, or a human work? Unquestionably, God works toward this end: God shines light in our hearts, the Holy Spirit convicts, and so forth. On the other hand, suggesting that belief is a human work has theological problems.
- John 6:35b–40.
- John 6:45.
- John 7:17 contains a parallel thought.
- Some exegetes might object that ελκω is used universally in John 12:32. For example, Chafer, Systematic Theology 7:65, suggests that there is a universal as well as a particular drawing, citing this passage for support. However, the context, with Greeks asking to meet Jesus, suggests the likelihood of interpreting all here as one would interpret it in 1 Timothy 6:10: “every kind of.”
- John 6:65.
No comments:
Post a Comment