Since I adopted Calvinism, is has become more and more integral to my view of Christianity and God in general. I've also found its Biblical foundation to be stronger than I ever imagined. The truths of Reformed soteriology are more beautiful all the time. Indeed, I've come to treasure them greatly. I see God in a greater way than ever before, and I want to share this vision to the best of my ability. Here, then, I want to give a few reasons why I'm so convicted for Calvinism, of its truth and of its goodness. (Oh, if you're unfamiliar with my adoption of Calvinism, see my earlier post: God's Will, Man's Will, and the Nature of Redemption)
Regeneration Must Precede Faith
One of the interesting results of total depravity is that, in order for someone to believe in Jesus (that is, have saving faith, not merely decide that the Gospel is true), he must first be born again. The reasoning is simple: if man is totally depraved so that he cannot ever come to Christ on his own, and to come to Christ is to believe in Him (see Jn. 6:35), then only by the transforming power of irresistible grace can he believe. If this seems complex now, don't worry. I can state it otherwise: man is too evil to ever choose to believe in his fallen state, thus he must be born again to believe. This is contrary to the general Arminian belief that faith precedes regeneration (and way contrary to the Catholic teaching that faith comes first and baptism then brings regeneration).
Because two fundamental Calvinist doctrines—total depravity and irresistible grace—are so closely linked with this question about regeneration (if you're unclear on what "regeneration" means, it's the new birth, being born again), it seems possible to prove or disprove Calvinism by proving or disproving that regeneration precedes faith. If the Bible makes it clear that faith comes first, Calvinism is false. If the Bible makes it clear that regeneration comes first, Calvinism is true. Of course, if the Bible is unclear on the order, then Calvinism must be decided solely on other evidence. My hope, though, is to show that the Bible teaches that regeneration precedes faith.
The Apostle John spoke more about the actual event of regeneration than almost any other New Testament writer did. Even Paul spoke mostly on the effects and nature of regeneration. So, I will base my arguments primarily on John and 1 John. The first major text on the new birth is John 3:1-8.
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
John 3:1-8
Okay, so here we see the first basic truths about the new birth. To list them, we note that 1) no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again, 2) being born again = being born of water and the Spirit, 3) no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born again, 4) the new birth is spiritual, and 5) the Holy Spirit brings new birth in a way comparable to the blowing of the wind. So, let's examine the implications of some of these points.
First, one cannot see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. Now, what does it mean to see the kingdom of God? Well, first note that this involves spiritual sight first and foremost. After all, there will be unbelievers who see the kingdom of God at least in part physically during the Millennium, and the New Testament writers often indicate that the kingdom of God came partially in a spiritual sense at Jesus' death. So, unless one's eyes are opened spiritually, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
The interesting thing about spiritual sight is that it is necessary to have faith. There is no reason to assume there are different kinds of spiritual sight; either you can see God's reality or not. So, when Jesus says, "seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand" (Matt. 13:13) His message, He must be talking about spiritual sight. Now, if fallen man cannot see the truth of the Gospel, it seems to follow that he cannot accept it on faith, either. This line of reasoning is supported by 1 Corinthians 2:14, speaking of unregenerate man, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." Now, the Gospel is most obviously a "thing of the Spirit of God," is it not? I would think it is foolish to think the message of salvation is not one of the things of the Spirit of God. So, if the natural man, who has not been born again, cannot accept or understand the Gospel, how can he have faith and be saved? It appears that he cannot.
So, one can neither see nor enter the kingdom of God without being born again. The new birth is spiritual in nature, which explains why it gives the spiritual sight needed to see the kingdom of God. The last point Jesus gives us here about the new birth is that the Holy Spirit's action is comparable to the wind blowing. This was a natural analogy for Jesus to use, for the words "wind" and "Spirit" are the same in Greek (they are also the same in Hebrew). Now, what did Jesus say about the wind? He said that it blows wherever it wants, and people can hear it blowing, but they can't really tell what it's doing. How does this idea parallel to the Holy Spirit and the new birth. Well, if we follow the analogy in the most straightforward way, we see that the wind is the Spirit. The blowing seems to parallel with initiating the new birth. So the Holy Spirit brings the new birth to whomever He wishes, though He does not explain His work and will to man. This seems to be the most obvious interpretation of the analogy.
The implications of this analogy are important to my point. Consider that no one can summon the wind. No matter what someone does, the wind will blow where it blows. In the same way, no one can prompt the Holy Spirit to give someone new birth. This is a problem if faith comes first. If you believe and are regenerated, then your decision to have faith would be what prompts the Holy Spirit to regenerate you. This does not follow with the image Jesus gives here. In case you believe I am taking the analogy too far, consider that John also writes, speaking of those who believe, "[they] were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13). Now, if they chose to believe, as we must, and then were regenerated, how were they not born "of the will of man?" Was it not their will to believe? Since "will" refers to the part of man that makes decisions, any decision to believe on part of the believer could not be the grounds for the Holy Spirit giving him new birth. A plain interpretation of these texts says that the Holy Spirit gives the new birth to whomever He wants, regardless of what they might decide.
There are certainly more verses we could examine on these points, but I feel these are sufficient for now. We've seen both that the unregenerate man cannot believe, and that the basis for regeneration is not a decision, even to believe. It follows, then, that faith is a gift of God bestowed immediately following regeneration. Indeed, Ephesians 2:8 tells us that faith is a gift of God, not coming from ourselves. Therefore the evidence supports regeneration preceding faith. Since this doctrine is necessarily bound to total depravity and irresistible grace, these two points of Calvinism must also be true. And indeed, because of how tightly all the points of Calvinism tie together, it seems that TULIP should be entirely correct. Nonetheless, giving exceptional evidence for two points of Calvinism isn't enough for all people. I believe strongly in Calvinism because I believe the Bible teaches that man must be born again to have faith, but that is not the only basis. Next I will attempt to show the value of the doctrine of limited atonement (or, more properly, definite atonement, or particular redemption).
For Whose Sins Did Jesus Die?
Easily the most controversial of all the points of Calvinism is limited atonement (or definite atonement, or particular redemption, or, as John Macarthur likes to call it, actual atonement). One problem is that most people define it by what it is not as opposed to what it is. See, limited atonement differs from the popular view (unlimited atonement) in that it says the only sins Jesus paid for on the cross were those of the elect. Popularly people say that Jesus atoned for the sins of every man. Nevertheless, I believe that limited atonement is more Biblical and more reasonable, and I will attempt to demonstrate this here.
Sometimes I think the Apostle John was the first Calvinist. There is probably more clear evidence for Calvinism in John's writings than in any others of the New Testament besides Romans. John 10 provides one of the key texts for limited atonement.
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd… but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
John 10:11-16, 26-28
I will here be using a very traditional line of Calvinist logic for this point. It is very straightforward and should be easy to follow. In fact, it's deceptively simple, which is why many opponents just dismiss it entirely. Still, see the reasoning:
- Jesus died for His sheep (v. 11).
- Jesus gives eternal life to His sheep (v. 28).
- The Pharisees didn't believe because they weren't His sheep (v. 26).
- Those who perish are not Jesus' sheep (v. 27).
- Many will perish, and thus are not Jesus' sheep (through the NT).
So, we see that Jesus died for His sheep. This alone should be enough. It is obvious that in a situation where some people are being excluded from a group and a group is being said to have certain benefits, those who are excluded from the group do not have those benefits. If I said to you, "I buy ice cream for all my friends. You're not my friend," it is apparent that I am telling you that I won't buy you ice cream. The same principle should apply here, for the same formula is being used. Note that in the same passage, Jesus said He gives eternal life to His sheep. If we decided that Jesus wasn't telling the Pharisees that He didn't die for them, then the same logic should tell us that Jesus gives them eternal life as well. This is preposterous, since they do not believe. Jesus died for His sheep, leads His sheep, and will give His sheep eternal life. There is no logical reason to think that Jesus does one of these things for everybody, but the others just for His sheep, when they are all mentioned in the same context. Another good verse for evidence is Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Now consider this for a moment. Husbands are told to love their wives like Christ loved the Church and died for it. Obviously, husbands aren't being told to love all women enough to die for them, or even being told to die for all women regardless. So, why should the parallel with Christ be any different? Christ loved the Church and gave Himself specifically for the Church, not for the world, just as a husband is to love his wife and give himself specifically for her, not for other women.
There is more to consider about the atonement. Hear this: both Calvinists and Arminians limit the atonement. We just limit it in different ways. If atonement was truly unlimited, everyone would be saved. But that's not true, so we limit the atonement somehow. In "unlimited atonement," everybody's sins were paid for in principle, but they must respond to the offer to have it applied. Therefore, "unlimited atonement" limits the effectiveness of the atonement. It doesn't actually secure anyone's salvation, but merely makes salvation possible for all. By contrast, in limited atonement only the elect's sins were paid for in full, including their hardness and unbelief, and their salvation is completely secured and assured. While limited atonement limits the scope of the atonement to the elect, it makes the effectiveness of the atonement unlimited, infallibly bringing all of the elect to salvation. Now, which seems greater: an "unlimited atonement" that makes salvation theoretically possible for anyone, or a limited atonement that actually brings salvation to a massive multitude? If you're not sure, imagine a man who wants to help the hungry get food. Which plan sounds better: taking a billion dollars, flying across the hungry communities of the world, and dropping bills in hopes that people will each pick up enough to get buy some food; or taking a billion dollars, finding a massive crowd of hungry people, and buying for each enough food?
I will bring up a final point about the atonement. The concept of "unlimited atonement" would make God unjust. It would bring about double jeopardy in the heavenly court. See, if all the sins of all men were paid for on the cross by Jesus, then they've all been paid for. There's no debt left. So if people "reject" this payment, what difference does it make? Will God decided, "Hmm…Jesus already paid for these sins, but since they reject Him I will punish these sins for a second time?" It sounds absurd! If Jesus died for the sins of all people, then billions of people Jesus partook in death for will partake in dead in Hell. Such is unthinkable! Do you know what propitiation means? Jesus was the propitiation for sin. Now, propitiation refers to Jesus diverting God's wrath from sinners and absorbing the pain Himself. So, as an analogy, imagine that God has a machine gun with bullets of wrath, one bullet for every sin. In judgment, He aims it at men to shoot His wrath at them for sin. But as propitiation, Jesus stands in the line of fire and takes the bullets. Do you see the problem here? If Jesus did this for everyone, then God would use up all His bullets on Jesus and there would be no more ammunition to punish those who reject Him. However, if Jesus did this only for the elect, then there are still bullets left to punish those who do not believe. This isn't some crazy analogy tailored to my theology, but an accurate picture of what the word "propitiation" means. Jesus is the propitiation for sin, and that only works if He propitiates only the sins of the elect.
The Beauty of These Truths
I don't just support these doctrines for the sake of intellectual argument, or so I can be right. The fact is that these truths are wonderful. They are glorious to our God. The sovereignty of God is an amazing thing. Consider it for a moment: God is in control of quite literally everything, from the smallest detail at the beginning of history to the massive climax at the end. No man can thwart God's plans, or set Him off, or even just make things a bit harder for God to work out for His glory and our good. We needn't worry about "what-ifs" in our past, for God has ordained even our failures as part of His grand design for all time. We don't need to worry that our failure to witness properly and consistently will leave some people out of God's kingdom who would otherwise be there, for God has chosen their destiny from eternity and nothing will change it, be it to Heaven or Hell. God hasn't wasted any of Jesus' blood on people who will die in their sins. No one for whom Christ died will taste death! And as for us, we can be humbled at our former inability, how we had no chance to choose God, but He still chose us! When we pray, we don't have to ask God for sanctification with the tag at the end, "I hope I'll be able to cooperate," for God will accomplish His purpose within us regardless of our flaws. Finally, we are not limited to just hoping that we will freely choose what is right, but we can rest assured that God will work in us. See how great the works of God are! He has accomplished everything in the slightest detail according to an absolutely wonderful plan, ordaining millions who will most certainly be saved. Our God cannot be cornered by man's refusal to play along with His plan. Even the most evil of people, who seem to live for the hope of doing terrible things to people, are subject to God and can be changed or destroyed at His slightest whim. We are of no worth, but our God is of all worth. I invite you to glory in these brilliant realities about the One we worship! He is truly Lord of lords and King of Kings, the one and only Sovereign.