A Reformed Response

The apologetics ministry of "Answers in Action" has posted on their web site an article entitled, "11 Questions on Calvinism & the Calvinist’s Worldview" (1996). These questions purportedly come from a group of non-Calvinists who attend the Passantino’s Mars Hill Club located in Orange County (CA).

In my opinion, the questions reveal much misunderstanding of Calvinistic soteriology and, at times, are down-right childish (e.g., "Does the God of Calvinism have two wills that are in direct contradiction and hence have a multiple personality disorder?"). One wonders how sincere the author(s) is when it is claimed that such questions should be seen as "opportunities for growth, not as threats" (p.1).

Whatever the case might be, no Calvinist should be shaken by the questions raised, since Reformed theology is ultimately rooted in Scripture and can be exegetically defended from its pages. The informed Calvinist, therefore, is not intimidated by the questions and comments set forth in the article, for we are convinced that truth will prevail and, within time, God will fully vindicate our position before the entire family of God. The great Bible commentator, Matthew Henry, has said it best: "Pure Christianity and serious godliness fear not the scrutiny of a free thought, but despise the impotent malice of a prejudiced one."

The following Arminian questions/objections are quoted verbatim from the original article (italic bold print) with my response listed underneath.

Response to Question #1: In several places the New Testament speaks of the unregenerate as "dead" (Mt.8:22; Jn.5:24; Eph.2:1,5; Col.2:13; 1 Tim.5:6; Jude v.12). The meaning cannot be that they are dead physically, but spiritually dead. But, then, what does it mean to be spiritually dead? It means that the unregenerate are devoid of the spiritual life necessary to please and serve their creator; they are alienated from the life of God; they can neither will nor love in conformity to God’s Law. Even though the faculties of their bodies are in full operation, they can no more fulfill their spiritual and ethical obligations to the Divine Law than can a physically dead corpse. What the New Testament pictures, then, is the spiritual equivalent of zombies. That this is the clear instruction of God’s Word, and not merely the assumptions of Calvinists, can be seen in Paul’s words to Timothy that the widow "who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives" (1 Tim.5:6).

Thus, when the Calvinist attempts to demonstrate man’s spiritual inability by citing passages which speak of the unbeliever as "dead," he is neither taking such verses out of their context nor reading into them more than what is warranted. In fact, even if the Bible never used the term "dead" in reference to the unregenerate, there are a multiplicity of passages that still reinforce the notion of human inability (Jer.13:23; Jn.6:44; 8:34,43; Rom.8:7-8; 2 Cor.4:3-4; Eph.2:1-3; 4:17-18; 2 Tim.2:24-26; Tit.1:15; 1 Jn.5:19).

Moreover, even if the Calvinist was unable to answer the proof-text of Romans 6:11 ("Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus") and the corresponding Arminian logic ("If being dead in sin means one can’t respond to God, then does being dead to sin mean that the Christian cannot respond to sin?"), this does not mean that the doctrine of human inability is destroyed, for the Arminian is still left to answer the numerous texts previously noted which unequivocably declare man’s spiritual impotence.

Even still, Paul’s words in Rom.6:11 is not difficult to harmonize with the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity. When Paul speaks of the unregenerate as "dead" (Eph.2:1,5; Col.2:13; 1 Tim.5;6), he is describing their spiritual state or condition before God and all that is implied within the term. However, in such passages as Rom.6:11, he is describing – not one’s state per se – but the believer’s attitude toward sin and how he is to view it. Observe closely Paul’s words: "Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin (NASB); "Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin" (KJV); "Count yourselves dead to sin" (NIV). Thus, Paul is exhorting those who have been united to Christ and raised to new life to carry out the moral implications of their new standing and view themselves as dead to sin. Although Christians can still sin, they are to see themselves as dead to its reign and power. In his fine commentary on Romans, Leon Morris writes:

Count is a favorite Pauline word; it conveys the idea of reckoning or calculating. Perhaps here "regard" or "recognize" would help us understand that Paul is arguing that his readers should come to see the truth of their situation. Christ’s death and resurrection has altered their position, and they should live in accordance with the new reality . . . Since Christ died to sin and since the believer is dead with Christ, the believer is dead to sin and is to recognize the fact of that death. This does not mean that he is immune to sinning. Paul does not say that sin is dead but that the believer is to count himself as dead to it. He feels temptation and sometimes he sins. But the sin of the unbeliever is the natural consequence of the fact that he is a slave to sin, whereas the sin of the believer is quite out of character. He has been set free. Paul tells him that he is to recognize that where sin is concerned he is among the dead. He has been delivered from its dominion. And death is permanent. Once united to Christ he must count himself as dead to the reign of sin forever (The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1988]p.256).

Response to Question #2: The Bible teaches both the full sovereignty of God over all of His creation as well as the freedom of humans to act in accordance with their nature. Man possesses the liberty to think his own thoughts about life and the world he lives in – including thoughts that deny God’s existence (Ps.14:1) or words that deny His omniscience (Ps.73:11). In no way does God coerce humans to think or behave the way that they do; the thoughts, words, and decisions that they make are their own and, hence, they alone bear the responsibility for them. Thus, we are guilty before a holy God because we perform our evil deeds freely (i.e., without constraint).

On the other hand, God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass as well as sovereignly controls all human events and choices (Ps.115:3; 135:6; Isa.46:9-11; Dan.4:34-35; Eph.1:11). The Bible is replete with passages that demonstrate both God’s sovereign control and man’s free activity. For example, Prov.16:9 says, "In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps" (cf. Prov.21:1). Proverbs 16:33 says the "lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." The wicked men who nailed Jesus to the cross bear the responsibility for their conscious and willful actions, even though such actions were according to the "predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23). Their treacherous acts sprang from their own counsel and mind, yet they did "whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur" (Acts 4:28). As Christians, we are responsible to "work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil.2:12); yet "it is God who is at work in [us] both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (v.13; cf. 1 Cor.15:10; Col.1:29; Heb.13:21). The Egyptians were responsible for their mistreatment of the Israelites, yet it was God who "turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants" (Ps.105:25). The Jews under the Old Covenant were responsible for knowing and living in conformity to the Mosaic law, "yet to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear" (Dt. 29:4; cf. Isa.44:18). The disciples, likewise, were responsible for knowing that Jesus was going to be "delivered into the hands of men" (Lk.9:44); yet they failed to understand the Lord’s words, for "it was concealed from them so that they might not perceive it" (v.45; cf. Lk.24:25-27, 44-45). To give but one further example, consider the inspiration of Scripture. The biblical authors, when writing Scripture, were not stenographers taking dictation. Rather, they freely expressed their own words, concerns and personalities. And yet, everything they freely chose to say was exactly what God wanted said. Even the very words they selected was supernaturally directed by the Holy Spirit.

The Calvinist may not be able to explain this to everyone’s satisfaction (or even his own). We are not required to do so (Dt.29:29; Isa.55:8-9). We are required, however, to submit our minds to God’s revelation and to not invent man-made theories in order to escape the tensions presented in Scripture (e.g., the free-will defense; prevenient grace theory). We must accept the full counsel of God’s Word as it stands, instead of positing human freedom against Divine sovereignty (or vice versa). The questions raised under item #2 suggest that we must accept either human freedom or God’s absolute sovereignty. But why can we not accept both – particularly when confronted with the numerous passages that teach both man’s freedom to act according to the dictates of his nature as well as the full sovereignty of God in all things? For further study, I recommend the article by John S. Feinberg, "God, Freedom, and Evil in Calvinist Thinking," [eds. Thomas R. Schreiner & Bruce A. Ware] The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995), Vol.2, pp.459-483.

#3. The Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:4, "God our Savior wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." It also states that God wants all men to be saved in 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 23:37 and in Ezekiel 33:11 and 18:30. Obviously not all men are saved. How does Calvinism explain this? Does the God of Calvinism have two wills that are in direct contradiction and hence have a multiple personality disorder?

Response to Question #3: Based upon the Scriptures, the Calvinist properly surmises that there are at least two wills in God, or two ways of willing. This truth has been variously expressed by Reformed theologians through such distinctions as God’s secret will and His revealed will, decretive will and preceptive will, or voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure). The Arminians, of course, scoff at this notion of two wills in God, but aside from the supporting exegetical data, even the Arminian apologist, I. Howard Marshall, concedes its truth:

To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the Gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what He actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God’s will [italics added]("Universal Grace and Atonement in the Pastoral Epistles," [ed. Clark H. Pinnock] The Grace of God, The Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989] p.56).

Turning now to the scriptural evidence, consider the following: On the one hand, it was sinful and contrary to the revealed Law of God to crucify the Son of God (Jn.19:11), yet it was exactly what God had willed and even predestined to occur (Isa.53:4,10; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28). Thus, there is a real sense in which God willed the suffering and crucifixion of His Son, even though the act was sin and violated the standards of His Word (Ex.23:7). In Luke 9:44, Jesus expects or desires that His disciples understand that He is soon to be "delivered into the hands of men." Yet the very next passage states that the disciples did not comprehend their Lord’s words, because "it was concealed from them so that they might not perceive it" (v.45). We see, then, that there is a sense in which humans can violate the will of God, yet they cannot ultimately thwart His eternal will and purpose (Ps.115:3; Isa.46:9-11; Dan.4:34-35; Eph.1:11). Many more examples could be cited, but our space is limited (see the outstanding article by John Piper, "Are There Two Wills in God?" The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will [Vol.1] pp.107-131).

Suffice it to say that when the Calvinist concludes that there are two wills in God, he does so because the exegetical evidence leads him to it, not because he has a theological grid to defend. In fact, it would be quite convenient to assert with our Arminian friends that man’s "free will" simply overrides or frustrates God’s will, rather than being accused of believing in a God who has a "multiple personality disorder." Nevertheless, Scripture alone must be our guide and we must seek to do justice to the entire picture of God that is presented in His revelation to man.

In the case of such passages as Mt.23:37, 1 Tim.2:4, and 2 Pet.3:9, many Calvinists interpret them as describing God’s general will to save humans, not His effectual or decretive will to save them {Note: In fairness, it is important to state that not every Calvinist has preferred this answer. For instance, such texts as 1 Tim.2:4 and 2 pet.3:9 should be contextually determined. Thus, the terms "all" or "all men" denote all races, types, and classes of men (or even all of the elect). The terms were used by the New Testament writers to emphasize salvation in its international aspect [Jn.10:16; 11:51-52; 12:32; Rev.5:9; 7:9]. For further study, see my In Defense of Particular Redemption: Answering the Difficult Texts}. While the former can be rejected, the latter cannot. In His benevolence, God wishes that all men repent and turn in faith to Christ. In His decretive will, however, he grants the necessary faith and repentance to only the elect (Jn.6:37-45; Acts 11:18; 13:48; Phil.1:29). Although it is true that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but sincerely desires that they turn from their wicked ways (Ezek.18:23,32; 33:11); and while it is true that Jesus grieves and weeps over Israel’s rejection of her Messiah (Mt.23:37), yet it is only those, elected in eternity (Eph.1:4-5,11; 2 Tim.1:9), who will believe. To the Arminian, this is theological double-talk, but the Calvinist wisely responds:

God’s emotional life is infinitely complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend. For example, who can comprehend that the Lord hears in one moment of time the prayers of ten million Christians around the world, and sympathizes with each one personally and individually like a caring Father (as Hebrews 4:15 says He will), even though among those ten million prayers some are brokenhearted and some are bursting with joy? How can God weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice when they are both coming to Him at the same time – in fact are always coming to Him with no break at all? Or who can comprehend that God is angry at the sin of the world every day (Ps.7:11), and yet every day, every moment, He is rejoicing with tremendous joy because somewhere in the world a sinner is repenting (Lk.15:7,10,23)? Who can comprehend that God continually burns with hot anger at the rebellion of the wicked, grieves over the unholy speech of His people (Eph.4:29-30), yet takes pleasure in them daily (Ps.149:4), and ceaselessly makes merry over penitent prodigals who come home? Who of us could say what complex of emotions is not possible for God? All we have to go on here is what He has chosen to tell us in the Bible (John Piper, "Are There Two Wills in God?" The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will [Vol.1] pp.126-127).

Response to Question #4: Reformed theology does not excludes one’s individual faith in the salvation process. It is not God who believes for us, but it is we who individually exercise faith or trust in Christ. Saving faith, according to the Calvinistic perspective, is not a work that man can either muster or merit on his own, but must be granted to him from God (Acts 14:27;16:14; 18:27; Eph.2:8-9; Phil.1:29; Jam.1:18; 1 Pet.1:21). In this sense, it concurs with what Paul argues in Rom.3:27-28 (4:5) that faith and human works are to be distinguished. On the other hand, saving faith, according to the Arminian scheme of things, can be properly viewed as a "work," since it does not come from the hand of God, but springs from the human will. Its origin or source is found in man and can be mustered any time he so chooses. Properly speaking, then, men have the right to boast in themselves, for it was they (not God) who made the decision to believe; it was they (not God) who possessed the wisdom or intellectual acumen to make the proper choice for Christ. They might claim that it was God’s grace that provided the initial gift of redemption, but in the end, it was up to them to effectively receive that gift and sustain it throughout their lives. The Arminian position, therefore, logically and scripturally leads to seeing faith as a work, despite their denials to the contrary. Only the Reformed view does justice to the teaching of Scripture and destroys any ground for boasting (1 Cor.1:18-31; 4:7).

Response to Question #5: The NIV translation of Jonah 2:8 is, perhaps, not the best (cf. H.L. Ellison, "Jonah," The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Vol.7] p.378) and there is some debate among commentators as to whether Jonah is thinking of idolaters among his own people or the pagan sailors. If Jewish idolaters are intended, he is chiding those Israelites who had forsaken their Covenant faithfulness and, thus, forfeited the grace that could have been theirs (the Hebrew word hesed ["grace"] can be alternately translated as "kindness" or "loyalty"). By turning to worthless idols, they nullify their Covenant vow to remain faithful to Yahweh and, consequently, they relinquish any available favor or kindness from Him (Dt.28:13-63; Ps.78). If the pagan sailors are intended, it simply means that by turning to idols, the heathen shut out God’s lovingkindness from their lives. Jonah is emphasizing that reprobates, through continuous rebellion to Divine truth, may completely extinguish God’s general and providential kindness to them, even though they were never appointed to experience His saving grace.

Whichever view one prefers, it is most likely that the term "grace" does not refer to any form of effectual or saving grace, but to Yahweh’s general love, favor, or kindness upon those created in His image. By cutting themselves off from Yahweh’s favor (through idol worship), they only "multiply their sorrows" (Ps.16:4).

We must remember that while reprobates will never be the recipients of God’s saving favor, they can experience his general or common favor upon their lives; and the prophet Jonah tells us that even this they can repudiate. As Louis Berkhof correctly notes, "It is a mistake to think that in this life the reprobate are entirely destitute of God’s favor. God does not limit the distribution of His natural gifts by the purpose of election. He does not even allow election and reprobation to determine the measure of these gifts. The reprobate often enjoy a greater measure of the natural blessings of life than the elect. What effectively distinguishes the latter from the former is that they are made recipients of the regenerating and saving grace of God" (Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1939] p.117).

#6. The Bible says in John 6:44, "no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." The same word "draw’ is used in John 12:32 which says, "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all men unto Myself." Matthew 23:37 says that men can resist God’s will. How do you answer this problem in Calvinism?

Response to Question #6: There is no conflict, within Reformed soteriology, between Jesus’ words in Mt.23:37 and the term "draw" (helko) used in both Jn.6:44 and 12:32. In Jn.6:44, Jesus stresses the sovereignty and Divine initiative of God in drawing men to Christ: "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (cf. Mt.11:27; Jn.5:21; 2 Tim.2:25-26; Jam.1:18). In the case of Jn.12:32 ("I will draw all men unto Myself"), the phrase "all men" denotes all men without distinction of race, nation, or status – which, by the way, is a common theme throughout John’s writings (cf. Jn.1:11-13; 10:16; 11:51-52; Rev.5:9; 7:9). For proof that Jesus was thinking of all men without distinction (and not all men without exception), the reader is urged to examine closely vv.19-21. The noted evangelical scholar and commentator, D.A. Carson, states:

Here, "all men" reminds the reader of what triggered these statements, viz the arrival of the Greeks, and means "all people without distinction, Jews and Gentiles alike," not all individuals without exception, since the surrounding context has just established judgment as a major theme (v.31), a time for distinguishing between those who love their lives (and therefore lose them) and those who hate their lives (and therefore keep them for eternal life, v.25). The critical event in Jesus’ ministry that sanctions His drawing of all people without distinction, and not Jews only (cf. 10:16; 11:52), is His cross/exaltation, His being "lifted up." This is the implicit answer to the Greeks: the hour has come for Him to die and be exalted, and in the wake of that passion/glorification they will be able to approach Him as freely as do the children of the Old Covenant (The Gospel According to John [Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1991] p.444).

John 12:32, interestingly, does not say that, through the atonement, Christ is offered to all men or that He will potentially draw all men. Rather, Jesus is declaring something that He will most certainly do: "draw all men unto Myself" (i.e., all types, classes, and nationalities of men). Thus, both Jn.6:44 and 12:32 speak of effectually accomplishing redemption on behalf of those given and drawn to the Son by the Father (Jn.6:37-39).

When Jesus weeps over Jerusalem’s rejection in Mt.23:37, we should not see this as an instance of men frustrating the decretive will of God, but of men rejecting the preceptive will of God for their lives. Indeed, men and women disobey the revealed will of God (found in Scripture) all the time; but in no way do they frustrate the eternal, preordained will of God (Isa.46:9-11; Dan.4:34-35).

In the same way that God the Father takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but sincerely desires that they repent (Ezek.18:23,32; 33:11), so also did the Son of God genuinely grieve over the Jewish nation’s apostasy and rejection of His claims. They rejected the external call of the Gospel which, as Loraine Boettner points out, "strikes the ear but in vain until God is pleased to touch the heart within" (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination [Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974] p.359). In no way, however, were they able to reject the internal or effectual call of the Holy Spirit unto salvation – "for many are called, but few are chosen" (Mt.22:14). We conclude our response to question #6 with the insightful words of Boettner:

Arminians object that God could not offer the Gospel to those who in His secret counsel were not designed to accept it; yet we find the Scriptures declaring that He does this very thing. His commands to Pharaoh have already been referred to. Isaiah was commissioned to preach to the Jews, and in 1:18-19, we find that he extended a gracious offer of pardon and cleansing. But in 6:9-13, immediately following his glorious vision and official appointment, he is informed that this preaching is destined to harden his countrymen to their almost universal destruction. Ezekiel was sent to speak to the house of Israel, but was told beforehand that they would not hear (Ezek.3:4-11). Matthew 23:33-37 presents the same teaching. In these passages God declares that He does the very thing which Arminians say He must not do. Hence the objection now under consideration [i.e., that the teaching of predestination precludes a sincere offer of the Gospel to the non-elect] has arisen not because of any Calvinistic misstatement of the Divine plan, but through erroneous assumptions made by Arminians themselves (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp.284-285).

Response to Question #7: Calvinists do not deny that unregenerate sinners can perform acts of charity or behave in ways that better humanity (think of Cornelius who "gave many alms to the Jewish people" [Acts 10:2] before coming to a knowledge of salvation). Jesus, likewise, never denied that men, although evil, were precluded from giving good gifts to their children or others (Mt.7:11; Lk.6:33). In spite of the Fall, man has tremendous creative capacities and, from a human perspective, can perform acts of kindness and betterment to his fellow man. In order to gain to a proper picture, however, we must consider two important points: (1) Even the so-called civil good or humanitarian acts on man’s part, are not inherent within man (as if they spring from a pure heart), but come from the hand of God. It is He who softens the hearts of sinners to perform deeds of kindness. All of this comes under the heading of God’s Common Grace or General Benevolence upon His creatures. (2) While it is true that unbelievers can perform some civil good for the betterment of their society, they cannot perform morally virtuous deeds which find acceptance before a Holy God who, in turn, demands perfect obedience to His Law (Gal.3:10-13). Even their so-called "good deeds" do not spring from the right motive (love toward God) nor aim at the right purpose (glory to God) – "And whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom.14:23). The apostle Paul makes it abundantly clear that "There is none righteous, not even one" . . . "There is none who does good, there is not even one" (Rom.3:10-12; cf. Ecc.7:20; Jer.13:23; 17:9; Jn.3:19; Rom.3:23). Even the best that we can produce is nothing more than a filthy garment in His sight (Isa.64:6); and "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" (Jn.3:6).

It is, therefore, not "bad" for unbelievers to rationally apprehend Christian apologetics, for to understand such apologetical arguments requires the grace of God at the outset. Nevertheless, to apprehend Christian apologetics (or even the Gospel message for that matter) without the accompanying faith and repentance will only further solidify one’s condemnation. In no way does this make God a "bad guy," since the unbeliever is solely responsible for his rejection of Divine truth. In the same way that God has commanded us to proclaim the Gospel to those whom He knows will never believe, so also He has commanded us to provide reasons for our faith in spite of willful and obstinate resistance (1 Pet.3:15; Jude v.3). Moreover, God may send us to apologetically reason with lost sinners for the express purpose of further hardening them unto judgment (Isa.6:9-13)! We must always remember that as Sovereign Ruler, God has the right to do whatever He wishes with His creatures (Rom.9:11-23); and not every person is granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom (Mt.13:10-11; cf. Dt.29:4; Isa.44:18). In fact, not only may God withhold knowledge, He may even choose to send upon certain persons "a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false" (2 Thess.2:11).

Response to Question #8: When the five-points of Calvinism are carefully explained and understood, we do not believe that this system of theology can be shown to have real logical contradictions. There are, perhaps, things that appear contradictory to the human mind; and, at times, Calvinism may transcend human reason, but not necessarily stand in direct contradiction to the laws of logic.

We do not deny that Calvinism is both religiously and philosophically offensive to the natural man; and that, from a human perspective, it appears hopelessly inconsistent. But to the assiduous student whose mind is continually being renewed by God’s Word, things are not as bad as the unregenerate suppose (or even as our Arminian brethren suggest).

In attempting to resolve such issues as Divine election and human responsibility or God’s two wills, the problem is not one of opposing and contradictory doctrines, but of an absence of additional information that would help solve the puzzle. Consider, for example, the doctrine of Inspiration: How can it be logically maintained that the Bible is both 100% the Word of God and 100% the word of man? Or, how can Jesus be both fully God and fully man at the same time? Do the biblical teachings of Inspiration and Christ’s Incarnation seem reasonable to the Fallen human mind? Should we abandon them because they appear to logically contradict each other? Not in the least. Both Arminians and Calvinists confess to an element of mystery or enigma at this point. But we are far from deserting such doctrines because, not only are they clearly found in Scripture, but also because we recognize that there is much information that is missing. In His Divine wisdom, God has not chosen to reveal all of the missing parts to these theological puzzles. He has given us sufficient information to know that they are true, but not exhaustive information that clarifies every detail to our personal satisfaction.

In the same way, God has not chosen to reveal the intricate solutions on such matters as Divine sovereignty and human freedom or other matters. Far from "copping out" as the Arminians allege, it is, instead, an indication that Calvinists are willing to submit their minds to the authority of Scripture, endure the ridicule of their opponents, and humbly trust that God will one day vindicate their words. Although he was addressing the sole issue of predestination, we believe that Calvin had the proper attitude when attempting to understand any complex issue contained in the Word of God:

The discussion of Predestination – a subject of itself rather intricate – is made very perplexed, and therefore dangerous, by human curiosity, which no barriers can restrain from wandering into forbidden labyrinths, and from soaring beyond its sphere, as if determined to leave none of the Divine secrets unscrutinized or unexplored . . . First, then, let them remember that when they inquire into Predestination, they penetrate into the inmost recesses of Divine wisdom, where the careless and confident intruder will obtain no satisfaction to his curiosity . . . For we know that when we have exceeded the limits of the Word, we shall get into a devious and irksome course, in which errors, slips, and falls will be inevitable. Let us then, in the first place bear in mind, that to desire any more knowledge of Predestination than that which is unfolded in the Word of God, indicates as great folly as to wish to walk through impassible roads, or to see in the dark. Nor let us be ashamed to be ignorant of some things relative to a subject in which there is a kind of learned ignorance (Institutes, Ch.XXI, Sec.I,II).

It must also be noted that the Calvinist is not simply announcing a doctrinal theory that is devoid of exegetical proof and then stamping it with the label "mystery." Rather, the five-points of Calvinism have been painstakingly demonstrated and explained from the text of Scripture itself. It is only the remaining elements of what God has decided not to explain which has prompted Reformed theologians to humbly confess ignorance or uncertainty about – for even the brightest of minds must eventually declare with the apostle Paul that "we see in a mirror dimly" and we "know in part" (1 Cor.13:12).

#9. The Bible says in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 that reprobates "perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." From your Calvinistic worldview, how can it logically be said that a reprobate refuses to love the truth and so be saved, when your God determines that the reprobate can’t love the truth, can’t be saved, and therefore doesn’t refuse God at all?

Response to Question #9: Such passages as 2 Thess.2:10 stress the human dimension of salvation and judgment. While it is true that these reprobates refuse to receive the truth of God and are, thereby, justly condemned by Him; yet, from the Divine side, the Lord has not chosen to open their eyes and grant them faith. They stand in stark contrast to the Thessalonian believers who were chosen "from the beginning for salvation" (v.13).

God does not spare His judgment from the reprobate merely because he cannot receive, in his own strength, the truth of the Gospel. Man’s inability in no way absolves his condemnation any more than do our human courts excuse a cleptomaniac simply because he has an inherent and insatiable desire to steal. God righteously judges them because they consciously and willfully spurn His Law. Even though humans know that there is a Divine maker (Rom.1:18-21) and are conscious of what is right and wrong (v.32), they still deliberately choose a path of suppression and disobedience to such knowledge. And, it is on this basis, that God justly sentences them to everlasting doom. Humans are, therefore, responsible creatures who will be called to account for their sinful decisions. God has the prerogative, then, to withhold saving grace from men and, at the same time, justly condemn them for their volitional sin. In no sense is He obligated to spiritually regenerate any of us (Note: "if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth" [2 Tim. 2:25]); and if He so chooses, it is solely by His grace and mercy. Who are we to arrogantly assume that God is obligated to give that which we do not deserve in the first place (Rom.9:14-21)?

Response to Question #10: Calvinist’s do believe that men and women can violate the general or revealed will of God (they do this all the time), but they cannot thwart the decretive will of God which has been predestined from eternity (Isa.46:9-11; Dan.4:34-35). This distinction must be in the forefront of our minds when we examine the subject of Divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

In addition, when Calvinists affirm (as do the Scriptures) that man’s will is not free, we are not denying a certain element of freedom on his part to do exactly what his sinful nature desires. A prisoner may be free to roam within the confines of his jail cell, but he is not free to exit any time he so chooses. The unregenerate, likewise, are free to sin as they wish (and even this is governed and restrained by God); but they are not, in their own power, free to break the shackles of sin and resurrect themselves to new life. In this sense, the Arminian notion of "free will" is a myth. To say otherwise, contradicts the repeated testimony of Scripture which pictures man as helpless and enslaved to sin (Jn.6:44; 8:34; Rom.5:6; 6:6,17-22; 8:6-8; 1 Cor.2:14; 2 Cor.4:3-4; 2 Tim.2:24-26). Quite honestly, God could not have made it any clearer.

As far as the problem of evil is concerned (and how sovereignty and human responsibility relate to it), the subject is too vast to be properly covered in this short article. In brief, it should be noted that while God has decreed the existence of sin, He is not the "author" of it in the sense that He coerces men to sin or is responsible for their actions. He has foreordained sin in such a way that men freely become the authors of their own sin. Thus, they work out, in detail, all the sin that God has decreed for their lives. At the same time, God is not responsible for what they willfully choose to do. If this may help to ease the tension, consider the crucifixion of our Lord: Were not the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities held responsible for their wicked deeds against Christ ("you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death" [Acts 2:23])? Yes, indeed! But, was not this horrible sin predestined by God (Acts 2:23; 4:28)? Is God, then, the author of sin (Ps.5:4; Jam.1:13-17)? Did He compel them to perform such evil deeds against their wills? Not at all. More could be said, but for further study, I recommend Jay Adams, The Grand Demonstration (Santa Barbara, CA: EastGate Publishers, 1991).

Response to Question #11: There is no need to "automatically assume" that God does not want to have mercy on all, because it is already explicitly stated in Romans 9:15-18 (cf. 11:7-10)!? Arminians need to read carefully the text from which they are arguing.

Turning to Rom.11:32, the term "all," in context, refers to what he had been previously speaking of: Jews and Gentiles as groups – as Douglas Moo states:

Paul is commenting on the process that he has outlined in vv.30-31 (and several other times in this chapter). That being the case, "all" might refer to the unbelieving Jews about whom he has been speaking of in v.31. But we can hardly eliminate from Paul’s reference the Gentiles in the church at Rome whom Paul has been addressing throughout this section. Considering the corporate perspective that is basic to chap.11, then, it seems best to think that "all" refers to "all the groups" about which Paul has been speaking; for example, Jews and Gentiles. Paul is not saying that all human beings will be saved. Rather, he is saying that God has imprisoned in disobedience first Gentiles and now Jews so that he might bestow mercy on each of these groups of humanity (New International Commentary on the New Testament: Romans [Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1996] pp.736-737).

Arminians who choose to argue along the lines of Question #11, need to remember one of the basic rules of interpretation: The meaning of any word is always determined by its context. Thus, the word "all" in Rom.11:32 is used differently than how it is used in Rom.3:23 where, by reason of the immediate context (vv.9-19) and the surrounding chapters (5:12), it must denote all men universally. The diligent student of Scripture should be alert to the fact that biblical authors frequently employ one word with different meanings (e.g., the term "law" and "world").