|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
Men will never believe with a saving and real faith,
unless God inclines the heart;
and they will believe as soon as he inclines it.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Great God of wonders,
all thy ways are matchless, God-like and divine;
but the fair glories of Thy grace
more God-like and unrivaled shine,
more God-like and unrivaled shine.
Who is a pardoning God like Thee? Or who has grace so rich and free?
Or who has grace so rich and free?
Samuel Davies (1723-1761)
In light of what the scriptures teach about the nature and character of God (see Chapter 10) and the nature of his works of creation and providence (see Chapters 16 and 17) it is quite clear that he is absolutely sovereign in the universe. Thus, we have asserted that his eternal purpose, that is his divine decree, encompasses all things including salvation (see Eph. 1:11). This concept is developed in some detail in Chapter 15. Earlier in this presentation on Soteriology, in Chapter 29, it was further argued that salvation is exclusively a work of God. From this it follows that the basis of salvation is found in the sovereignty of God. Furthermore, man’s lost estate, as summarized in the same chapter and developed in full in Chapters 25-27, is so disparate that, if God does not act in elective grace he will experience eternal damnation.
I. Introduction: Some Background Considerations
A. Definition of Significant Terms
1. Election
Election is the phase of God's eternal purpose (decree) whereby he certainly and eternally determines, by means of unconditional and loving choice, who will believe. It is not mere purpose to give salvation to those who may believe, but rather it determines who will believe (Matt. 22:14; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:33; Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13). Properly viewed, election is not an obstruction to salvation as held by some; rather it removes that which would otherwise be an obstruction.
2. Foreknowledge
Foreknowledge is a selective knowledge which makes one an object of love rather than the mere taking knowledge of something beforehand. It focuses upon that which motivates God to act, it involves choice, and is related to persons rather than what they will do (Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:29; 11:2).
3. Foreordination
Foreordination (predestination) is a marking out beforehand of persons and their destiny. It is related to the will of God and has to do with the divine certainty of the results of election (Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:5).
4. Calling
a) General Calling
General calling is the presentation of the gospel message to all men with the invitation to receive Christ as Savior by faith (Matt. 22:14; John 3:16-18; 16:7-11).
b) Effectual Calling
Effectual calling is the application of the word of the gospel by the Holy Spirit unto salvation (1 Cor. 1:23-24; Rom. 8:28, 30; cf. John 6:44).
5. Salvation is the fruition of election
It is the sum total of all God's work for man in delivering him from his lost condition in sin and finally presenting him in glory (as well as everything in between). While it is true that election is not conditioned upon man's action, salvation is conditioned on faith in Christ. Nonetheless, once received it is certain and eternal (John 3:16-17; 6:37; Acts 4:3:2).
Other terms that relate to the issue have been treated in Chapter 15. In addition, some of the above listed terms are dealt with more extensively in that same chapter.
B. Principles Governing God's Elective Purpose in Salvation
1. The classical passage (Rom. 9:6-24; for further development see Chapter 15)
The passage falls into two divisions each of which has two sub-divisions. The essence of these verses may be outlined as follows:
a) Our relationship with God (9:6-13)
i. It is not a matter of physical descent (6-9).
ii. It is not a matter of personal character or works (10-13).
b) God's relationship with us (9:14-24)
i. It is a matter of his character (14-18). He is just in extending or withholding mercy.
ii. It is a matter of his authority (19-24). He is sovereign in the actions he takes and gracious in withholding wrath or extending glory.
2. The principles set forth
i. God's elective purpose in salvation does not involve human merit. It is unprompted by anything outside the Godhead.
ii. God's elective purpose in salvation is altogether righteous. It is unchallengeable in that it rests on the divine character.
iii. God's elective purpose in salvation involves the exercise of sovereign grace. It is undeserved in that it either delays or delivers from judgment.
C. The Issue of Human Accountability
Sad as it is to say, there is a sense in which the history of the church could be written by tracing the pendulumic swings of the views on salvation by grace. The controversy has raged and continues to rage over the issue of the freedom of man's will.
Already in the late fourth century Pelagius propounded the idea that there was no such thing as original sin and that man may live without sin if he chose to do so. He was opposed by Augustine, who held to the idea of the bondage of the human will to sin, and was condemned as a heretic at the Synod of Carthage in 418 A. D. This heresy was soon followed by the rise of semi-Pelagianism. “John Cassian held that ‘the will always remains free in man, and it can either neglect or delight in the grace of God.' In this view man on his own can take the initiative in coming to God." [i]
While these views were condemned in the Second Council of Orange in 529 A. D. they continued to reappear from time to time. Bernard of Claivaux denied the possibility of man turning to God of his own free will, [ii] on the one hand while Thomas held that "man's natural will healed and aided by grace contributes to the act of justification." [iii] This has set the direction for most Roman Catholic thinking since that time and was strengthened by the Council of Trent (1545-1563) as it made answer to the reformation views of Luther and Calvin.
The reformers held that Tridentine doctrine was synergistic. "In the reformed view our free will does not need to be assisted so much as converted or transformed." [iv] In recent statements of Roman Catholic theology similar views persist as seen in J. Pohle [v] and Karl Rahner, who while claiming to reject synergism nonetheless affirms a degree of freedom for man’s will. [vi]
Post-Reformation Protestant thought has also been plagued by Pelagian and semi-Pelagian ideas. There is difference among Wesley scholars over whether John Wesley held to synergistic views although it would appear that Colin Williams is right that while his views may not have been semi-Pelagian they were a form of qualified synergism. [vii] Many of his followers are avowedly synergistic. Some forms of revivalism, as represented for example Charles Finney, held that conversion was “the sinners own act." [viii] Again, in sharp contrast to this thinking, there is the strong reformation view of the Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper [ix] and of the British preacher Charles H. Spurgeon. [x]
Today "the synergistic outlook has made at least a partial comeback in the movements of secular and liberation theology where it is assumed that man can build the kingdom of God on earth through social engineering." [xi] Many, of course, raise their voices against such ideas but one who has clearly reaffirmed the principle of salvation by grace alone apart from any human works is James I. Packer. [xii] As difficult as it may be, the biblical balance must be maintained at all costs. This calls for the affirmation of both the bondage of man's will and man's free agency.
1. The bondage of the will
The direction of the will is determined by the motives of the soul which in turn arise from man's understanding. It may be said that there are three possible conditions of the will:
i. that it is not able to sin (non posse peccare) which is true of glorified saints and our Lord, only;
ii. that it is able not to sin (posse non peccare) which is true of the believer, and
iii. that it is not able not to sin (non posse non peccare) which is the condition of the unbeliever’s will.
This last condition, which is our concern at this point, is much disputed by those who appeal to an elusive "freedom" said to be man's inalienable right from God. While we would not question that a form of freedom of the will is God's desire for man we reject the idea that such exists apart from divine grace. In the sense of indiscriminate decision freedom is a myth.
For example, from the standpoint of natural freedom no one determines their own parents or the time, place and circumstances of their own birth. From the standpoint of ethical freedom the Bible states in clear tones that apart from the intervention of God man cannot make the right choices between good and evil (Rom. 7:13-25; e.g., "for I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not," v. 18).
Likewise, the idea that the unbelieving man has spiritual freedom to make a self-determined choice of life in Christ is wishful thinking. Man's total inability is unmistakably taught in such passages as (John 1:11-13) ("not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man"); 6:44 ("no one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him"); 15:5 ("apart from me you can do nothing"); Rom. 9:16 ("it does not depend on the man who wills or ... runs"); 1 Cor. 2:14 ("a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; ... he cannot understand them"); and James 1:18 ("by the exercise of his will he brought us forth"). The Augsburg Confession states this truth well.
Concerning free will, they [the churches] teach that man’s will hath some liberty to work a civil righteousness, and to choose such things as reason can reach unto; but that it hath no power to work the righteousness of God or a spiritual righteousness, without the Spirit of God; because that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14). But this is wrought in the heart when men do receive the Spirit of God through the Word.
These things are in as many words affirmed by St. Augustine, Hypognosticon , lib. iii.; ‘We confess that there is in all men a free will, which hath indeed the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby fitted, without God, either to begin or to perform any thing in matters pertaining to God, but only in works, belonging to this present life, whether they be good or evil. By good works, I mean those which are of the goodness of nature; as to will to labor in the field, to desire meat or drink, to desire to have a friend, to desire apparel, to desire to build a house, to marry a wife, to nourish catle, to learn the art of divers good things, to desire any good thing pertaining to this present life; all which are not without God’s government, yea, they are, and had their beginning from God and by God. Among evil things, I account such as these: to will to worship an image; to will manslaughter and such like’.
They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that by the powers of nature alone, without the Spirit of God, we are able to love God above all things; also to perform the commandments of God, as touching the substance of our actions. For although nature be able in some sort to do the external work (for it is able to withhold the hands from theft and murder), yet it can not work the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, and such like.
2. The free agency of mankind
Does the above view of the bondage of man's will remove him from all accountability to God? That the answer is, No, man remains accountable, is seen from the following line of argument.
a) There are three categories under which views on man’s will may be grouped.
1) The category of necessity
This type of thinking, which includes the various fatalistic views, holds that events are determined by some necessity rather than by will. Free agency and human responsibility are rejected.
2) The category of contingency
All views falling into this category (Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism) hold that the will must have an independent self-determining power (although this is sometimes accounted for by a supposed prevenient work of God's grace) otherwise there is no liberty.
3) The category of certainty
According to those who hold this view (Augustinian-Calvinistic theologians) man is free when both his outward acts and inward volitions are truly his own, that is when he is accountable for them. The events may be certain and at the same time free.
b) The confusion of liberty and ability
Some have assumed that these are one and the same. Free agency, however, is the power to decide according to our character while ability is the power to change our character by our own volition. The biblical doctrine preserves the former and rejects the latter.
c) The harmony of liberty and certainty
Necessity as a theory of will in the actions of mankind undermines the possibility of morality because it denies personal accountability. Contingency rules out sovereignty by making God a responder to man's decisions. Certainly, on the other hand, preserves both morality and sovereignty by insisting that a free act may be inevitably certain. This theory is proven by the fact that God is infinitely moral in all of his dealings and yet is bound by his nature in his actions. This in no way lessens neither his personal, divine genuineness nor his freedom to be who he really is. No more does a theory of certainty diminish man's genuineness nor his free agency.
d) Conclusion
In conclusion it may be noted that man is both free and responsible because he is the author of his own acts. Nonetheless, the will is not free but in bondage to sin. The idea that the will is free is a false doctrine which denies the total depravity of man and the absolute sovereignty of God.
D. Ordo Salutis
The phrase Ordo Salutis is variously translated as "way of salvation" or "plan of salvation." Berkhof states that it "describes the process by which the work of salvation, wrought in Christ, is subjectively realized in the hearts and lives of sinners. It aims at describing in their logical order, and also in their interrelations, the various movements of the Holy Spirit in the application of the work of redemption." [xiii]
Since the order we are considering is logical, and since scripture does not specify the exact order of these items, charity needs to be exercised toward those who hold the following differing views. This is not to suggest that just any view is acceptable or that it makes no difference which or whether one holds a particular view. It is to say that when determining which of the following views one espouses it is not a matter of orthodoxy versus heterodoxy.[xiv]
1. Order within the decree
The question of logical order within God's elective purpose of salvation was introduced as to the four possible options in Chapter 15. At this juncture, only the two moderating and most nearly biblical options will be discussed. It should also be noted that the several parts within these respective views should not be construed as separate decrees but as aspects of God's singular decree.
a) Sublapsarianism
(Note: Most Reformed theologians use the prefixes "sub" and "infra" interchangeably to refer to the view herein designated as sublapsarian. Both prefixes mean "below." The distinction between the two views relates to how far below the decree to permit the fall is placed the decree to elect.)
i. Decree to create all men.
ii. Decree to permit the fall.
iii. Decree to elect some out of the fallen multitude and leave others in their misery.
iv. Decree to provide salvation for the elect.
v. Decree to save the elect through faith in Christ.
b) Infralapsarianism
i. Decree to create all men.
ii. Decree to permit the fall.
iii. Decree to provide salvation sufficient for all men.
iv. Decree to elect some from among fallen mankind and to leave the others in their sin.
v. Decree to save the elect through faith in Christ.
c) Comparative observations
The point of distinction in the above listed views is in the interchange of items three and four. The sublapsarian view has the advantage of what appears to be a stronger hedge against universalism and an apparently more logical relationship between the number who are actually saved, the number who are elect and the extent of the provision. It is generally governed by a decidedly redempto-centric system, viz. Covenant Theology, out of which system it has arisen.
While the infralapsarian view does not have the apparent advantage of the inexorable logic of sublapsarianism, it does have the strength of being based on less strained exegesis. The apparent “universal offer” passages can be better harmonized with this view. While these passages are much discussed as to their intent Carl Henry's comments are worthy of consideration.
To explain the terms "world" and "all" in these verses as meaning "all the elect" seems contrived. Such exegesis obviously is more appropriate to some verses then to others; an example of the former is 2 Peter 3:9 where the text controlled by "God's promise" and "to us ward" has in view only the elect and implies neither universal salvation nor universal redemption. [xv]
Such passages as John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2, on the other hand, argue strongly for a more universal sense for the term "world". [xvi] Henry continues:
Exegesis of Hebrews 9:28 seems to require that Jesus Christ's death covers everyone's guilt in Adam; in that event final condemnation would concentrate on each impenitent's individually committed sin. This view that Christ died for the guilt and penalty of all who are racially in Adam but bore the guilt and penalty for the active individual rebellion only of the elect, resolves some but not all problems. It accommodates the salvation of children below the age of accountability; some theologians argue on the other hand that just as children before accountability are guilty in Adam without committing any personal sin of their own, so they are reckoned justified in Christ without exercising any personal faith of their own. Even if the indicated verses require the view that Christ's atonement in fact covers both the racial and personal sins of all human beings, no automatic inference requires the view that all persons are therefore elect. Since God's action is often strikingly munificent, the objection need not be fatal that, in view of the election of only some to salvation, an unlimited atonement involves divine inefficiency in the outworking of the redemptive plan.
But any argument that God's election and provision of atonement automatically means universal salvation is without basis. Verses which imply God's sincere and strong wish for salvation are not necessarily inconsistent with the divine election of only some to eternal life. Those who contend that it would impugn divine love and justice if God were to elect only some fallen creatures without extending the same prerogatives to all are mistaken. Scripture gives no hint that the electing God provided divine salvation for all the fallen angels; the fact that he provided salvation for only fallen humans does not reflect adversely either on divine love or on divine justice. [xvii]
The question of the extent or object of the atonement will be dealt with below.
2. Order within the application of the elective decree
The fifth item within the above-noted lapsarian views may be variously ordered as well. The order suggested here is followed in chapters 36 through 40 although there is some question as whether each of these should be viewed seriatum, even from a logical standpoint. In light of Paul's listing of divine acts in Romans 8:29-30 an order of some sort is seen to be biblically legitimate. The fact that each verb is an aorist indicative, and thus viewed as an accomplished fact, would suggest the possibility of simultaneity, that is, the order is logical rather than chronological. The order of consideration will be a) calling and regeneration, b) conversion (including repentance and faith), c) justification, d) sanctification, and e) security and glorification.
II. For Whom Did Christ Die?
The question of the extent or object of Christ's atoning death is often an occasion for strong emotion and division among believers. This is unfortunate for, while it is believed that only one view best accounts for all of the biblical data, adherents of both views defend their position from scripture, are committed to orthodoxy, and give practical evidence of concern for the proclamation and application of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
As in our presentation of the Ordo Salutis above so here our comments will now be limited to a discussion of the two most viable options with preference expressed for one. A brief word, however, about the relationship of Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic thought on this subject should be made. "For Calvin it might be said that all is of grace, but grace is not for all. Wesley and Luther on the other hand held that all is of grace and grace is for all, but not all are for grace." [xviii] W. G. T. Shedd draws the distinction between the Calvinist and Arminian as follows:
Both are evangelical, in affirming that salvation is solely by faith in Christ's atoning blood. This differentiates them from the legal Socinian, who denies the doctrine of vicarious atonement, and founds salvation from condemnation on personal character and good works. But they differ regarding the origin of faith. The Calvinist maintains that faith is wholly from God, being one of the effects of regeneration; the Arminian that it is partly from God and partly from man.
The Calvinist asserts that a sinner is unconditionally elected to the act of faith, and that the Holy Spirit in regeneration inclines and enables him to act, without cooperation and assistance from him. The Arminian asserts that a sinner is conditionally elected to the act of faith, and that the Holy Sprit works faith in him with some assistance and cooperation from him. This co-operation consists in ceasing to resist, and yielding to the operation of the Spirit. In this case, the Holy Spirit does not overcome a totally averse and resisting will, which is the Calvinistic view, but he influences a partially inclining will. [xix]
He then summarizes the error of Arminianism on this issue by noting that "it is indeed true, upon this theory, that if God does not assist, the act of faith is impossible; but it is equally true, that if the sinner does not assist, the act of faith is impossible... God is as dependent in this respect as man." [xx]
One further introductory word will be helpful relating to the meaning of the word "extent" as herein used. As Shedd notes,
The term "extent" has two senses in English usage. (a) It has a passive meaning and is equivalent to value.... In this signification of the word, the "extent" of Christ's atonement would be the intrinsic and real value of it for purposes of judicial satisfaction. In this use of the term, all parties who hold the atonement in any evangelical meaning would concede that the "extent" of the atonement is unlimited….
(b) The word has an active signification. It elevates the act of extending. The "extent" of the atonement in this sense, means its personal application to individuals by the Holy Spirit. The extent is now the intent.... [xxi]
If the word means value, then the atonement is unlimited; if it means extending, that is, applying, then the atonement is limited.
These distinctions are helpful and are followed in the ensuing discussion. Hodge, however, as Berkhof (see later presentation), confuses the issue further. This is evidenced by his quotation from John Owen who uses the term "extend" [xxii] in a yet different sense. As Hodge says, "Here, to 'extend' grace is to actually save the soul, by effectual calling." [xxiii]
A. The Representative Views
1. Limited atonement—limited redemption
The following statements from Berkhof, who is representative of evangelical Reformed theology will set forth this position. "The Reformed position is that Christ died for the purpose of actually and certainly saving the elect, and the elect only." [xxiv] "The atonement not only made salvation possible for the sinner, but actually secured it." [xxv]
2. Unlimited atonement—limited redemption.
This is the view set forth in this theological treatise. It should be distinguished from all Arminian and Saumurian views, from all limited atonement views, and from any unlimited atonement views that universalize the saving effects of the death of Christ. The view may be stated as holding that Christ died for all men with a view to their salvation, if elect, or their condemnation, if non-elect.
Since the view being suggested here has sometimes been labeled Saumurian (or Amyraldian after the view of Moses Amyraldus, a French Theologian, 1596-1644) a further word on that view is necessary so as to distinguish it from the view herein propounded. The Amyraldian view is set forth with a view to its refutation in the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675) as follows (Canon VI):
Wherefore we cannot give suffrage to the opinion of those who teach:
that God, moved by philanthropy or a sort of special love for the fallen human race, to previous election, did, in a kind of conditioned willing—willingness—first moving of pity, as they call it—inefficacious desire—purpose the salvation of all and each, at least, conditionally, i.e., if they would believe;
that He appointed Christ Mediator for all of the fallen; and
that, at length, certain ones whom He regarded, not simply as sinners in the first Adam, but as redeemed in the second Adam, He elected, i.e., He determined to graciously bestow on these, in time, the saving gift of faith; and in this sole act Election properly so called is complete.
Summarized, this view is that there was a twofold decree, first, to save all men, but since men would not exercise faith in Christ, second, to save a select group by special grace. As Shedd puts it this doctrine of what he calls "Hypothetic Universalism” is “that personal faith in Christ’s atonement in the first arrangement of God depended in part upon the decision of the sinful will, but since this failed, by a second arrangement it now depends wholly upon the work of the Spirit, according to the purpose of election. [xxvi] This is not the view I am suggesting for there is no place in it for a failed first decree nor for a synergistic view of will.
While not holding to the view in quite the same form as set forth here Shedd does state some of my thinking very well. He states, “Atonement must be distinguished from redemption. The latter term includes the application of the atonement.” [xxvii]
Later he says “Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited.... He who asserts unlimited atonement, and limited redemption, cannot well be misconceived. He is understood to hold that the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in its value, sufficiency, and publication, but limited in its effectual application." [xxviii] He then explains what he means by "limited." "In saying that Christ's atonement is limited in its application, and that redemption is particular not universal, it is meant that the number of persons to whom it is effectually applied is a fixed and definite number. The notion of definiteness, not of smallness, is intended." [xxix]
The classical universalistic error, that all will eventually be saved since God is a God of love and not vindictiveness has been restated in some forms of neo-orthodox theology. Neo-universalism teaches that all mankind is already in a state of being reconciled to God because all are elect in Christ. "The whole human race is redeemed in actuality, a motif which is implicit if not explicit in the Barthian theology…. Barth has argued on the basis of 2 Corinthians 5:14 and 15 that in Christ the whole of sinful mankind has died, and therefore all are necessarily included in the new humanity created by Christ." [xxx] He fails to note the clear contrast in this passage drawn between "all" and "they who live." His appeal to 1 Corinthians 15:22 is likewise faulty for while he wants to make "all" in both cases apply to all of humanity the text qualifies both alls. The first refers to all "in Adam" and thus is comprehensive of mankind in general; the second, however, refers to all "in Christ" which is a select group from among the totality. His theological error is to fail to recognize that the death of Christ is the basis both for the redemption of the elect and the condemnation of the non-elect.
B. The Issue at Stake
1. The proper statement of the question
a) What it is not
As he introduces this subject Berkhof lists four items that are not at issue:
i. "Whether the satisfaction rendered by Christ was in itself sufficient for the salvation of all men, since this is admitted by all";
ii. "Whether the saving benefits are actually applied to every man, for the great majority of those who teach a universal atonement do not believe that all are actually saved";
iii. "Whether the bona fide offer of salvation is made to all that hear the gospel, on the condition of repentance and faith, since the Reformed Churches do not call this in question"; and, we might add, the non-Reformed certainly do not either;
iv. "Whether any of the fruits of the death of Christ accrue to the benefit of the non- elect in virtue of their close association with the people of God, since this is explicitl