Doctrines of Grace

What Spurgeon was emphasizing in the quote above, however, is that this is not at all the case. God has not left the matter with us. It is God and not man who makes the difference. God makes the choice, not man; indeed, man is so ruined by sin that he is unable to choose God. Further, God does the drawing; He goes before and Himself brings the sinner to Christ. In fact, this is the very purpose of Christ’s death ─ to save these whom the Father has chosen. And having saved them, God keeps them and will never allow them to stray so far as to fall into condemnation. Salvation, from beginning to end, is of God (Jonah 2:9; 1Cor.1:30).

By the early seventeenth century, however, one Jacobus Arminus, a Dutch scholar, began to question it all; and his followers, called “Remonstrants” (“protesters”) or “Arminians,” challenged the church with their new beliefs: 1) The freedom of the human will; 2) Conditional election by God, based upon His foreseen faith in men; 3) Christ’s death was designed to save every man, and whatever it accomplished it accomplished for all men equally; 4) Saving grace is resistible; it is generally given to all men equally and so may be refused; 5) Those who do exercise their will to be saved may later lose that faith and be lost. In response, the Synod of Dort reaffirmed that: 1) Man is totally depraved; everything about him, including his will, is negatively affected by the fall of Adam. 2) God elects whom He will save unconditionally; He places no conditions upon those whom He chooses but acts sovereignly. 3) The death of Christ, while completely sufficient to save all men, was designed specifically to save the elect. 4) When God moves in a sinner’s heart to bring him savingly to Christ, He succeeds infallibly; His saving grace proves irresistible. 5) All those who are saved will persevere in faith forever. This response of Dort has been fashioned into an acronym after the state flower of Holland, the tulip.

A century ago in his Plan of Salvation B.B. Warfield argued powerfully that if a Theist allows the necessary implications of the Theism he has already embraced, he must be a Calvinist. That is to say, soteriological Calvinism is but the implicate, the necessary consequence of Theism. It is simply God being God. Moreover, soteriological Calvinism is the embodiment of the prophet Jonah’s declaration, “Salvation is of the Lord!” (Jonah 2:9). It is the outworking of the proposition that salvation is God’s doing, that it is his gracious gift to undeserving sinners, and that he saves in such a way that only he receives the glory for it (1 Cor. 1:26-31; Eph. 2:8-10). If we adhere to these propositions we are Calvinists. Compelling as such reasoning is, of course, we are not left to ground our theology in deductions and logical arguments merely. We embrace soteriological Calvinism, ultimately, because we find it to be taught us in the Scriptures. We fully expect God’s redemptive plan to be in perfect keeping with himself, and such logical consistency is therefore inevitable. But whatever the logical necessities and implications – and for that matter, whatever questions may remain unresolved in our minds and whatever tensions we may feel – at the end of the day we hold these doctrines because we believe them to be Biblical.

This is the doctrine of total depravity. It does not mean, as many have misunderstood, that man is as bad as he can possibly be. It means that man is as bad off as he can possibly be. He is a sinner. He has sinned. He is guilty and deserving of divine wrath. And for this he can provide no remedy himself ─ he is the sinner! And the one remedy which is offered in Christ he will not take. Indeed, he cannot understand it. Simply put, man is without ability to remedy his condition, and he is unwilling to be otherwise.

Now, there’s one very important entailment of total depravity that becomes the point of dispute with many people because it just rubs us wrong. But it’s very important, I think, to come to an understanding of it. And that’s what we sometimes refer to as not just total depravity, but total inability. Total inability is simply an entailment of depravity. Human nature now has become wrong. And because of our twisted disposition in Adam, because our disposition born this way is sinful, we’re unable to find our way back to God. We’re unable to do it simply because our disposition is the other direction.

This consideration of the blinding effects of human depravity is a necessary corrective to a common mischaracterization of election. Scripture nowhere allows the notion that some who may have wanted to be saved were refused. Humanity’s unbelief and rejection of God is unanimous (Psa. 14:1-3; Isa. 53:6; Matt. 23:37; John 5:40; Rom. 3:12). Indeed, it is this that renders God’s sovereign choice necessary. Had he not chosen, all would be lost.

That God chose whom he would save is a common theme in Scripture. God’s eternal decree is all-encompassing, and salvation likewise is according to his own gracious purpose (Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:11; 2Tim. 1:9). Those whom God saves are those whom he chose to save (Eph. 1:4; 1Thes. 1:4-5; 2Thes. 2:13-14, etc.). This, in brief, is the doctrine of election. The doctrine of election traces the “decision” to save back to God himself in eternity past and affirms that he, not man, determined who will be saved (Eph. 1:3-6).

The biblical characterization of the situation is, God looked down and says, “Is there anyone who will come? Anyone who will come? I’ll have anyone who comes. Anyone.” And to a man, we have said, “No.” None seek after God. And at that point, God can say, “All right, have it your way. Have it your way.” And having it your way, we would have had universal condemnation. Not one person would be saved. Universal rejection. But instead, what we find is that in spite of the universal rejection of God by all of humanity, God has said, “I’m not going to let it go at that. I will choose out for myself among all of these lost humanity, those who in their insane rebellion are rejecting me in my offer of grace. I’ll choose men and women from all over the globe, from every kindred and tribe and tongue and nation. I’ll choose for myself men and women who will be saved, and by that reclaim the world for myself.”

Many have misunderstood this wonderful truth. They see election as a negative thing. They reason as though there were many people who all want to be saved but can’t because God hasn’t chosen them. But of course this is all wrong. It is not that some want in but God bars the door. The reality is that the door is wide open for any to enter ─ but none will! But, happily, God did not leave the matter there. He could have, and if He had He would have been entirely just in doing so. But He didn’t. He instead made His own choice, one which overruled our own madness.

The doctrine of election affirms that for purposes known only to himself God chose those whom he would save. He did not choose them because of anything about them but for his own “good pleasure” (Matt. 11:25-27). The Arminian doctrine of election often argues to the contrary, that God chose whom he would save based on foreseen faith – that looking ahead, God saw who would believe and on that basis chose to save them. That is, according to the Arminian doctrine, God “chose” us but only because we first chose him.

This principle is illustrated in John 15:16 where Jesus asserts to his disciples, “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Of course, on one level Jesus’ disciples did, in fact, respond to his call and in that sense “chose” him. But what Jesus plainly indicates is that it was not, in fact, their choice of him that determined his choice of them; it was, rather, his choice of them that determined their choice of him. Sovereign election comes first.

Election is God’s sovereign choice of whom he would save, a choice grounded in himself alone apart from considerations of anything in us. God’s foreknowledge is a causative concept closely related to the doctrine of predestination. In those passages that speak of his foreknowledge of his elect (Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1Pet. 1:2) it further connotes divine favor – God’s electing love and saving purpose. Romans 8:29 – “whom he foreknew he predestined” – is therefore an assuring reminder to us, believers, that our salvation is a divine work from beginning to end.

To the Biblical way of thinking, it is not “Esau I have hated” that presents the problem. That God should hate Esau is very understandable. The problem is, rather, How could God “love Jacob”? Jacob was not deserving of God’s love. Nor was the nation which came after him. But Paul’s point is just that: God’s choice of whom He will save is not at all determined by anything in the individual himself. It is an “election of grace” (Rom.11:5).

Reformed interpreters stress that as in election so also in preterition and reprobation determinations are made according to God’s own good pleasure (Rom 9:18). The elect are not chosen because they are in any way better or because of anything they have done (Rom 9:11). Nor are the reprobate destined to condemnation because they are in some way more evil. Whether we speak of election or preterition, the underlying assumption is sin and deserved condemnation—a “universalism of ruin” (Warfield). If the people in view were not sinners, they would not need election or deserve reprobation. Whether, then, to save or to condemn is God’s prerogative. We cannot probe further.

Careful distinctions are necessary in this discussion. Both election and preterition are grounded in divine sovereignty. But condemnation—the consequence of preterition and the object of reprobation—is grounded in divine justice and the reality of human responsibility. The sinner is passed over in sovereignty but condemned in justice. The basis of reprobation is the sin and ill-desert of the sinners themselves. God’s condemnation is just (Rom 3:8).

Our question here is a narrow one: In his dying whom did our Lord intend to save? Just what was his death designed to accomplish? Many universalists have argued that in his death Christ has saved all men. Arminians have argued that his death provided for the salvation of all men if they will believe. By contrast, Reformed interpreters argue that by his death our Lord actually accomplished and secured the salvation of all his chosen people – that he died with the intention of saving them.

Note that the question is not whether our Lord’s death was of sufficient value to save others – few have questioned that. The question here is not the value of the atonement, and the expression “sufficient for all, efficacious for the elect” is one that Reformed types have affirmed for centuries. Moreover, we must be careful to understand the related terminology correctly. “Limited atonement” frames the question rather negatively emphasizing that Christ died only to save his elect. “Particular redemption” and “definite atonement” state the same only more positively – Christ died with the intention of saving his people.

The very meaning of Christ’s death is substitution: Christ died in our place so that because of his substitutional payment of the penalty of our sin we will go free. Again, this is the shared view of all Christians. But once we have said that, we have spoken in exclusive terms. As we have just seen, this is the meaning of all the “he died for us” statements in the New Testament. Whether we say “Christ died for the ungodly” (Rom. 5:6) or “Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8) or “he was made a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13), etc., the meaning is the same: his death paid the debt of our sin substitutionally the consequence of which is that we are saved. If we were to say that Christ died “for” some who perish we change the meaning of his death altogether: it would no longer be an actual substitution of bearing sin in the sinner’s place. In this sense all of the verses in Scripture that affirm substitutionary atonement at the same time affirm particular redemption. The nature of the atonement determines its extent.

At issue here is not the value but the efficacy of Christ’s death. Did He in dying try to save everyone? Did He in dying merely make salvation possible for everyone equally? Was this His intent? If so, then in the end it was not His death that secured our salvation. And if that is so, then His death was not enough. This is why the Biblical writers emphasize so that in dying, Jesus secured and accomplished the salvation of His people. He did not die in hopes that someone somewhere might make his way to somehow make His atonement efficacious. Not at all. He died to save. He came to “save His people from their sins” (Mt.1:21), and so He did. In His death the work that saves was “finished” (Jn.19:30).

John 3:16–17 Here John famously affirms that God so loved the world that he sent his son to save it. Transparently “world” here does not indicate that every last person will be saved but that the world will be reclaimed through Christ’s saving work. As Revelation 5:9 later confirms – men and women from every tribe and nation under heaven will be saved. This is biblical universalism.

Many have taken this verse to affirm universal atonement, but that presents a difficulty with regard to the word “propitiation.” Propitiation is the work of Christ whereby in his death he satisfied the demands of God’s justice and appeased his wrath against us. If by “whole world” John refers to every person without exception, then we would have to conclude that all people will in fact be saved because that is what propitiation means. That cannot be John’s meaning, for there are just too many New Testament indications that many will perish. And so many argue that this verse indicates that in Christ’s work God has made redemption available to all, that Christ “may be” the propitiation for anyone’s sins. But this is not what John says either. He does not say that Christ “may be” the propitiation but that he “is” the propitiation for our sins.

Still, many have argued that Christ made propitiation for every person but that the salvation thus procured is not actualized apart from our faith. But again, we are left then to ask in what meaningful sense could we say that Christ is the propitiation for those who perish? Moreover, John offers this by way of giving assurance to sinning Christians, an assurance grounded in an accomplished salvation: “If anyone sins we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins!” It would seem that the expression “the whole world” must be understood in a sense other than “every person without exception” – that Christ’s saving work accomplished salvation globally, just as the previous passages indicate also.

And so we come now to this doctrine of irresistible grace, which simply says that God effectually brings his elect to saving faith in Christ. God effectually brings his elect to saving faith in Christ. Having chosen us to salvation, having sent his son to accomplish our salvation, he further brings us then to Christ in faith in salvation. Now the idea here—and it might even be better stated this way—the idea here is God infallibly saves his elect.

It is for this reason that we say God’s saving grace is “irresistible.” This does not mean that no one rejects the gospel, obviously. Nor does it mean that God’s elect may not for a time resist. It plainly admits all of this. What is meant by the term is that God’s call is efficacious. That is to say, when God calls a man into the fellowship of His Son (1Cor.1:9), the call is not refused. And necessarily so: it is the outworking of the eternal plan. We are “called according to His purpose” (Rom.8:28; 2Tim.1:9). It is Jesus’ chosen “sheep” whom He calls, and when they hear, they come (Jn.10:3, 27).

And so again, we call it effectual calling. Again, no Calvinist would ever say that people are saved even though they don’t want to be, although there’s a play on that that we should mention in a little while as well. But that would be ridiculous. Faith, by the very nature of it, is an act of the will. No one has ever been saved who didn’t want to be. Faith, by the nature of it, is an act of the will where we rest ourselves on Christ as a choice that we make.

Now then, if God has done all this for us, could we ever again become lost? Is it possible that God would include us in His eternal, redeeming plan and then allow us to be condemned? The question answers itself. “He Who calls us is faithful” and He will surely bring us to final glorification (1Thes.5:23-24). Having begun this work in us, He will certainly finish it (Phil.1:6). This is His work of redemption, and He will not fail (Jn.6:37-39). To accomplish the final salvation of all of God’s elect is precisely the mission on which the Lord Jesus came (Jn.6:38-39). His death on the cross “perfected them forever” (Heb.10:14). All of Christ’s sheep are safe forever in His hand, and, further, in the Father’s hand (Jn.10:27-29). “They shall never perish” (Jn.10:28). Never.

Now, that does not mean, and I should clarify this, that does not mean that all who profess salvation are safe in Christ forever. Not all who profess faith in Christ are safe in Christ forever. There is such a thing as a spurious faith, a wrong faith, a faith that is not genuine saving faith. And so we believe very emphatically and firmly: once saved, always saved. But that does not mean that once he says he has believed, he is always saved. There are other distinctions, and we’ll see just a little of that as we go along. But not everyone who professes faith in Christ—it does not mean they’re necessarily in Christ. Stating the issue again quickly: those who are brought to Christ in faith will persevere in Christ and in faith forever. Let me say it this way: we agree that the saints must persevere. We agree with that. Saints must persevere.

The question, then, is not whether we might sin. The question is whether God’s grace is sufficient to keep us even though we sin. Happily, “Where sin abounded, grace much more abounded” (Rom.5:20). If it were otherwise, we would all perish. It is further a question of God’s power. Can He keep us in faith? Indeed He can (1Pet.1:3-5). Can He keep us from sin such that would cause us to fall away entirely? Of course. He is well “able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy” (Jude 24).

In a day in which Pelagianism reigns it may seem a strange discussion indeed to debate whether the gospel should be offered freely. But hyper-Calvinism remains with us, and the resurgence of Reformed theology in recent decades has witnessed with it a resurgence of hyper-Calvinism also. And one of its characteristic marks is its hesitation and sometimes even refusal to preach the gospel to the non-elect or to the unregenerate. Some “high” Calvinists come a step further and argue that while the gospel should not be offered it should be proclaimed. The gospel makes no offer, it is argued; it issues a command to repent and believe. We should clarify at the outset that this discussion does not concern contemporary “altar calls” or formulaic decisionism. Nor does this discussion question the necessity of divine initiative — unconditional election, effectual calling, and so on. Nor does this discussion question that the sovereign Spirit alone can persuade the lost to faith in Christ. On these matters all Calvinists are agreed. The question at issue is whether a sincere offer of salvation can legitimately be made indiscriminately to the lost.

The lost are free to do whatever they want to do, but therein lies the problem: the “want to” of sinners is sinful and therefore disinclined from God. The “inability” of the lost to respond to the gospel lies in their own will – they do not come to Christ simply because they won’t . And because they “refuse to come to me” they are held responsible (John 5:40). Simply put, depravity and inability does not preclude responsibility. The universal responsibility to believe and be saved remains. Moreover, as Warfield insightfully observes ( Selected Shorter Writings , p.725–728), no sinner can know that he or she is unable except by trying to come. And the doctrine of total inability is not, “You cannot come”; it is, rather, “You cannot come apart from divine aid.” This is how Jesus himself defined the matter: And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God” (Mark 10:26–27). The responsibility remains: a person concerned for his or her soul is not told to “wait” but to “come.” And all who do come, he receives (John 6:37). A recognition of helplessness is no excuse for continued unbelief, nor is it a barrier to the universal offer of salvation.

The indiscriminate call and free offer of the gospel has strong and explicit Biblical warrant, and the traditional Reformed position has rightly maintained it. The concern of some high Calvinists that a free offer of the gospel implies Arminian notions is simply mistaken. God positions himself toward the wicked as willing to save, and he pleads with them accordingly through his spokesmen. This universal appeal of the gospel is the external means by which God, in his own time, sovereignly calls his elect individually into the fellowship of Christ. If in the gospel God is freely offering Christ to the world, the Christians must make the same offer. If it is the duty of all to believe, then it is the duty of Christians to offer Christ. We can say to anyone, anywhere—and we must not hesitate—“If you will come to Jesus Christ, he will save you.”

We may agree with those who argue that there is no necessity for the God of infinite majesty to make overtures of grace to those who will only continue to rebel. Indeed, we might as well say that it would be beneath God to offer salvation to anyone , irrespective of their eventual response. But the fact is, he does , and he tells us so repeatedly. He commands, he implores, he pleads, he stands longingly with outstretched arms—all this is the biblical language. More to the point, we must recognize that this compassionate stance is part of God’s self-revelation to be understood as one aspect of his glory. We do not adore God rightly until we recognize his great heart of love. And we do not proclaim the gospel rightly until we reflect this stance ourselves.