This morning, my old friend Nate left an insightful comment on the Facebook post of my review of David Platt’s book, Follow Me. I think he raises many valid points, and I would like to take the time to address them. I’ve chosen to do that here, on the blog, rather than on the Facebook thread so that I can better interact with his comments. To see what he is commenting on, please click here, and scroll down to the section titled, My Criticism. Nate’s comments will appear in the gray boxes, with my responses to each immediately following.
My first contention is with your statement that basically God initiated our salvation at the Cross and now he’s waiting for us to “make that salvation available.” What does the Holy Spirit do? Isn’t he the one who convicts and convinces of sin (John 16:7-8) and also the one who initiates our spiritual birth (John 3:5-8), or are these verses “metaphorical” as well? What is his mission? To wait around until we build up the gumption to surrender to Christ and then he moves in? That’s not Biblical in the slightest.
In my attempt to be brief, I left out a lot of important information, as you have pointed out. Certainly, the Holy Spirit is actively wooing nonChristians to Jesus through a variety of means, particularly convicting of sin. God is not sitting back in his heavenly arm chair waiting for us to accomplish his mission. But here’s the point I wanted to make–neither are we sitting back in our sinful arm chairs waiting for God to save us and everyone else. We are active agents in the Great Commission. We were told by Jesus, “Go. Make Disciples. Teach. Baptize.” (And surely he is with us, always.) God did what only he could do–pay the price for the sin of humanity on the cross, then destroy death through his resurrection. Then, as Matthew 28 makes explicit, he told his first disciples to tell the rest of the world about what has happened, and in that telling they would bring the message through which all could be saved. (Acts 11:14) God has partnered with his people to bring about salvation for all who will believe. Paul makes the point most clearly, I think:
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” (Romans 10:9-15)
To sum it up:
- We are saved by calling on the name of the Lord;
- We call on the name of the Lord because we believe in him;
- We believe in him because we have heard of him [and the Gospel];
- We have heard because someone has preached to us.
I’m not saying that you or I can save anybody. Nor am I saying that God has nothing whatsoever to do with our salvation, now that the crucifixion and resurrection have happened. What I am saying is what I think both Jesus and Paul are saying, which is that God has sovereignly chosen to make his disciples active agents in his plan of salvation. Isn’t that what missions is all about? I think Platt would agree with me on that, at least.
Regarding your statement about the parable of the treasure; I think you’re missing an important component. Namely, how does this man know the treasure has value? I know that seems simplistic, but seriously, what tells this man “this is worth my life savings”? If you say it’s obvious that it’s valuable, then why don’t some people see this value? Why do many people who are saturated with the Gospel never see its worth? Are they not as smart as us? Not as spiritually sensitive? Are they simply more in love with their sin than we are? If you say the difference between them and us is anything but the grace of God (and the work of the Holy Spirit), then you have just added works/merit to our salvation and stepped into potential heresy (I’m not accusing you of intentional heresy, simply that you are treading on thin ice).
I thought this was a great point, and I thought about it for a long time. Then it struck me that Jesus may have had something to say about this.
That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred,sixty or thirty times what was sown. Whoever has ears, let them hear.”
[Jesus then goes on to explain the parable.] “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.” (Matthew 13)
It seems to me that Jesus is describing four types of people that characterize four different responses to the Gospel. Jesus says that there are three reasons for why people reject the Gospel: 1) They don’t understand it, and so Satan has snatched away the message that was sown in their heart; 2) Trouble and/or persecution comes upon a new believer who has no root, and so they give up; and 3) The worries of life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke out the Gospel, so that it fails to bring forth fruit. The fourth soil–the only one in which the Gospel bears fruit–produces a thriving crop because, as Jesus says, someone heard the word and understood it. Jesus did not say that this was because of the grace of God or the work of the Holy Spirit. He says that the Gospel took root in them and was fertile because they heard and understood it. So I will say what Jesus said: The difference between those who receive the Gospel and those who reject it is that the ones who receive it understand it.
At this point, it may be tempting to ask, “Why did they understand it?”, and then to answer, “Because of the grace of God and the work of the Holy Spirit.” But that’s not what Jesus said. He left it at “someone who hears the word and understands it.” To explain the mechanism of understanding is to eisegete the text. You said, “If you say the difference between them and us is anything but the grace of God (and the work of the Holy Spirit), then you have just added works/merit to our salvation and stepped into potential heresy.” But this is precisely what Jesus has said. I would argue that if your theological system puts you in the position of accusing Jesus of “potential heresy,” then it is time to abandon your theological system.
Your treatment of Ephesians 2 is confusing. If Paul didn’t mean that we are spiritually dead, then what exactly did he mean? Paul used the word nekros there, and while I don’t know Greek perfectly, that means dead. A corpse. Without life. You mentioned that it may be metaphorical. Honestly, if he were referring to our physical bodies, you would be correct because obviously the reader was alive and able to read. But our physical life isn’t what he had in mind, he was referring to our spiritual self. This isn’t Gnosticism, this is Biblical. Gnosticism is that the spiritual and the physical are unrelated so what happens to one is independent of the other. That’s not what he was teaching.
Also, I don’t think I need to go into detail that the Bible considers unsaved people to be dead. That is clear. To think that when I was unsaved I was ALMOST totally dead, but I had a spark of divinity that could choose God is semi-Pelagian at best. I don’t want to get aggressive here, but it concerns me that every time a passage is presented that contradicts your theological view, instead of trying to reason it out within Scripture, your default response is that it must be metaphorical. You’ve done it with both creation and prophecy in the past. I don’t argue those because they are not critical to the faith. But to say that the clear Biblical teaching that we are helpless corpses in our sin is simply metaphorical is untenable. If we start throwing this word around then we run into problems such as was the virgin birth simply metaphor? What about the miracles? What about the nature of the atonement? Was the resurrection metaphorical or literal? The Second Coming? I’m not trying to be belligerent, and I’m not questioning your fidelity on these issues, I’m simply saying you enter a slippery slope whenever you throw the word “metaphor” around loosely when the Bible doesn’t intend to be taken metaphorically.
You’re correct in identifying the basic teaching of Gnosticism. John saw this Gnostic storm brewing in his church at Ephesus, and so we got the incredible book of 1 John, which just so happens to be my favorite book in the Bible. But if Paul is saying that the spiritual can be dead while the physical is alive, isn’t he saying the same thing (though with the opposite side being dead or useless) as the Gnostics? Isn’t this kind of division of the spiritual and physical Gnostic, in and of itself?
As for Ephesians 2, perhaps I ought to go back to Ephesians 1 to help explain why I think Paul is using a metaphor. Ephesians 1:12-13 says this: “…we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit…” (I’ve italicized the portions I think are relevant to this discussion.) Can dead people put their hope in Christ? Can dead people believe? Platt argues that dead people can’t invite Jesus into their hearts. In fact, dead people can’t do anything! But Paul says that these people, whom he calls “dead in your transgressions and sins” in chapter 2, believed in Christ. Paul does not say, in chapter 1, that they were infused with belief by God. Rather, he plainly states: When you believed. They were dead in their sins, and then they heard the Gospel and believed. (This sounds quite similar to the parable of Jesus I quoted above.) This, as well as the contrasting vocabulary Paul chooses in chapter 2 (You were dead in your…sins in which you used to live), leads me to believe that Paul is using the term dead metaphorically.
As for your concerns about interpreting Scripture, I try to remain as faithful as possible to the text, which, for me, means understanding the text within its original context, however much a thing is possible. I’ve used this quote from Fee & Stuart again and again, and I live by it: The Bible cannot mean what it never meant. What it meant when it was written is what it means today, though obviously we apply the text in a vastly different context. I’m not afraid of becoming liberal anymore. Many people believe that I’ve already arrived there. No, my greater fear is being unfaithful to Jesus and the Scriptures. The reason that I rail, at times, against certain Calvinistic doctrines is because I believe that they are, in fact, unfaithful to Jesus and the Scriptures.
Finally, (and this is turning out to be longer than I expected) while I agree with you that Genesis 1&2 are eternal and will return someday, the fact is that Genesis 3 distorted that image, like it did everything else. Certainly, Christ began the reversal of the curse on the Cross, and someday he will reverse it completely when he returns, but until then, sin rules this world and blinds the eyes of the lost. Before I was saved, I was dead, blind, and useless. When God gave me life and raised me from the dead spiritually, I was able to enter a relationship with him again. Not because I’m better than anyone else, but because God is gracious.
I agree with so much of what you write here, but I would say this: sin does not rule this world, Jesus does. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15, “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.” Jesus, not sin, is Lord. Jesus is presently reigning from the right hand of the Father, that glorious place of cosmic authority from which he is presently putting all his enemies under his feet.
The core of our disagreement, I think, is that, in my opinion, you give sin too much credit. The creative act of God is more powerful and more enduring the destructive acts of Satan or humans. If Jesus is Lord, then sin, death, hell, Satan, or anyone or anything else is not. The Genesis 3 world is passing away, and the Revelation 21-22 world (which is really just the mirror image of the Genesis 1-2 world) is coming. Jesus has already defeated sin, evil, and death. He is defeating them. And he will defeat them.
I hope that I have sufficiently answered your concerns, and I look forward to continuing this discussion.
Ok, first of all, OLD friend? Sure, you’re a few years younger than me, but you’re no spring chicken yourself. But I digress…
Back to the subject at hand, I realize you weren’t deliberately removing the Holy Spirit from our salvation. Often, our misunderstandings can come from our attempts at brevity. I will also say that I agree with your statement that God has chosen to use people to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth to all people. Certainly, belief and repentance are the fundamental evidence of a converted heart, as Paul clearly teaches and as we are explicitly instructed to spread this message. The issue, however, is that in your four-point summary, you skip an important question that most people will at some point ask: why do some people believe after hearing the Gospel and some don’t? Personally, I think that is a fair question, and it’s one that Paul addresses in this chapter you quoted and in the preceding chapter.
If you read on in chapter 10 of Romans, Paul basically says “so how come some (in context, the Jewish people) have heard the Gospel and rejected it?” This is obviously an important question. In verse 20 he says that some who didn’t even want God found him and were saved by him. The answer to this question is provided in the previous chapter, the dreaded Romans 9. It is God’s sovereign choice and we have no business telling him that his choices are wrong. After all, who are we to tell the Creator of the universe what to do with his creation? I realize from reading your other blog posts that you believe Romans 9 is referring ONLY to the nation of Israel and is speaking corporately, not individually. I think viewing the Scripture in this way does violence to the original meaning of the text. Paul is certainly talking about the church corporately which has been chosen, but to draw an imaginary line between how God views corporate election and individual election is, in my opinion, grasping at straws to save a worldview.
Your treatment of the Parable of the Sower is valid. Your logic is solid, and you are correct, if that is the only verse we have to explain the impetus for our belief on Christ, then yes, it would be grasping to say that our understanding comes from “the grace of God and the Holy Spirit.” But you have to be careful to not take one verse and base your argument on that. Luke 24:45 says “Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” Acts 16:14 speaks of Lydia’s conversion and it says that the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. Acts 13:48 says that as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 11:18 tells us that God is the one who grants repentance to eternal life. I seriously could go on and on because the Scriptures are replete with passages either implying or flat out stating that conversion is something that is initiated by God, accomplished by Christ, and applied by the Holy Spirit. I didn’t even go to John chapters 6 or 10. Now, to say that God is waiting for me, a sinful turd to finish His work is absurd. God uses my pathetic efforts to spread the Gospel and graciously opens minds to the truth of the Gospel. This in no way releases me from the responsibility of presenting the Gospel as clearly, passionately, or emphatically as possible, I am still to share the Gospel, even if I know it is God who does the real work.
The reason I think this is so important (other than it being Biblical), is that it can put the pressure/praise on us. If I share the Gospel with a friend, and I botch my delivery, then I may be to blame for him rejecting Christ and going to hell. If, on the other hand, I deliver a Gospel message that would make Billy Graham stand up and cheer, and my friend believes on Christ, then I could take some pride in knowing that my delivery was spot on and he’ll be in heaven because of me. This is all contrary to Scripture where Paul calls preaching the Gospel foolishness. Bottom line: the Gospel does not make sense to a person unless God opens their heart to its truth and value.
Regarding Ephesians 2, I think your definition of “dead” is different from Paul’s definition. The Gnostics believed that because my spiritual and physical self don’t affect each other I can either have all the physical pleasures I want, or I can abuse my body, whichever sounds more appealing. That division is not Biblical and that’s not what Paul was teaching. He wasn’t saying that we are spiritually dead to the point that we are just a shell of flesh walking around without a spirit or soul. Obviously that’s impossible…actually, I think that’s a zombie, but we’re not going there… Paul’s point is that spiritually, we are dead in regards to our sensitivity to God. That is, the part of our spirit that would respond to God is dead, and it died when Adam rebelled (Romans 5:12). Therefore, to share the Gospel with a man who is spiritually dead, (again, not someone who is without a spirit, but without sensitivity to God) is basically a losing proposition unless God steps in and gives him life. Which brings us to Ephesians 2:1.
Regarding Ephesians 1:12-13, you bring up an excellent point. No, a dead man cannot put their hope in Christ. If you go back just one more verse you see that word that makes all sorts of people cringe, “predestined.” Because we were “predestined”, that means chosen, selected beforehand, etc., we obtained an inheritance or a portion according to God’s purpose and His will, not ours. Thus, you have raised the question (possibly without even knowing it) “when are we regenerated?” I believe the answer which is overwhelmingly supported by Scripture is that while regeneration and conversion are simultaneous events, logically, regeneration occurs before conversion when the Holy Spirit brings life into our dead heart (as God had predestined), and leads us to recognize and understand the truth of the Gospel.
You may be correct in your diagnosis that the core of our disagreement is over the extent of the fall. I believe that sin has horribly marred the image of God in man and our ability to come to him on our own. I don’t believe that because it feels good, I believe that because I believe Scripture is clear that conversion is not a natural event. However, I do share your belief that Jesus certainly rules this world. However, he doesn’t always rule the way we think is best. He allows evil to run rampant. He allows people to rebel against him and go to hell. He hardens hearts (pharaoh, Judas, Israel) and enlightens the unlikely (Paul, Peter, Gentiles). Jesus must have a purpose for letting this all continue. I believe that his purpose is to show that he is truly the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and even in a sinful, fallen world his will is ALWAYS accomplished, even if we think we could do it better.
I know we have theological differences, and honestly, I usually am hesitant to get into these conversations online because they rarely solve anything or ever change anyone’s mind. But it is good mental and Biblical exercise! With that said, I would be interested in hearing your response, but I can’t guarantee I’ll reply in such great length next time. This has taken a lot more time that I had planned!
Finally, I hope you don’t think I’m accusing you of heresy or liberalism. I’m not. I honestly respect your zeal for Christ and his sheep and your depth of knowledge on the Scriptures. I also want you to know that I do pray for you and your family, especially your little boy Zeke. Your updates break my heart, but I know God is using this and will use this for your good (Rom 8:28).
For His Glory…
Hey Nate,
Thanks for commenting. Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply. I’ll get right to it.
You said, “to draw an imaginary line between how God views corporate election and individual election is, in my opinion, grasping at straws to save a worldview.” I would argue that the concept of individual election is foreign to the worldview of the authors of Scripture. They didn’t think in terms of individuals being elected; for them, election came as a people–the chosen people, Israel. Furthermore, election, for them, was not synonymous with salvation. Rather, election was the process by which salvation would be made available to all people. In other words, salvation was the purpose of their election. I believe the prophets bear this out over and over, and it is everywhere assumed in the Old Testament. Jesus himself reiterates it in John 4 when he tells the Samaritan woman that “salvation is from the Jews.” I believe that this has devastating ramifications for the Calvinist interpretation of Scripture, particularly Romans 9, which was not understood as referring to individual election until Augustine.
You said, “conversion is something that is initiated by God, accomplished by Christ, and applied by the Holy Spirit. … Now, to say that God is waiting for me, a sinful turd to finish His work is absurd.” All that I am trying to affirm is that our salvation does not become effectual until we believe, and that belief is our responsibility. I want to be as clear on this as I possibly can: People cannot save themselves. All the work of salvation has been accomplished by God. Christ died for us. Christ is risen. The Holy Spirit is wooing all people everywhere to salvation. Yet, in accordance with the integrity of his creation, God does not coerce or force anyone to belief. Belief in Christ and acceptance of his atoning sacrifice is an act of the will of each person. This is not a “good work” that earns us salvation because grace is not earned, it is received. God has done all the hard stuff of salvation, and in one sense you could even say that repentance and faith is the admission, “Yep, God, you’ve done it.”
Furthermore, if we are to disbelieve in doctrines because of what they could lead to, then by all means disbelieve in Calvinism! For in that system of belief, Christ did not die for all. God created some people specifically to send them to hell. The effectual force of salvation is not the cross and resurrection of Jesus, but rather the arbitrary choice of God. In fact, when God’s sovereign choice is the predetermining factor in salvation, why does one need a cross at all? Certainly the God who creates and authors evil and sin could do away with it in some other fashion than the death of his son. If we’re going to talk about slippery slopes, Calvinism is the slipperiest, darkest, most treacherous of them all.
As for what you say about regeneration and conversion, I would say that is speculative. It seems to me that the common NT formula is “believe and be saved,” meaning that faith comes first, so to speak. Acts 16:31 and Romans 10:9 bear this out.
Thanks for the invigorating discussion. I appreciate your sincere desire to glorify and serve God. Thanks, too, for your kind words about Zeke. We continue to wait patiently for God’s healing hand to engulf him.
I guess rather than taking an hour and a half to respond to your post, it may be helpful for me to explain why I lean more towards the reformed view of soteriology (I guess you could call me a Calvinist, although I think labels like that do nothing but distort clear thinking…)
Here are two questions that I don’t think any other theological system can Biblically answer other than “Calvinism”:
1) Did God know who would get saved and who wouldn’t get saved before our creation? I believe in order to maintain a Biblical view of God, you have to say yes, otherwise he’s not really omniscient. So then the following question must be answered: why would he allow those whom he knew would reject him be born? Isn’t that de facto reprobation/election? You can argue that in Calvinism God’s reprobation/election is “arbitrary”, but what is more arbitrary, God, by his grace, pouring His grace on his undeserving elect for the purpose of displaying his mercy or God pretending to woo a nonbeliever despite the fact that He knows they will never submit to Him?
2) Where in Scripture is the concept of “Free Will”? Now, don’t get me wrong, I completely believe that we are moral agents in the fact that our decisions have real, moral significance and we will be held accountable for them for eternity. (This article was helpful to me–> http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2013/06/17/we-are-all-compatibilists-at-the-cross/) But I guess I just don’t see in Scripture the idea that we are the final determining factor in our salvation. God’s grace is what draws us to salvation.
The problem I see with fighting God’s sovereignty is that when we view salvation as something that is ultimately in our hands, that makes the most important aspect of our presentation of the Gospel that it be acceptable, easily recieved, and non-offensive. As a result, many churches have gone the direction of watering down the Gospel because people don’t like to hear that they are sinners and on their way to hell unless they repent and believe on Christ. So we are Joel Osteened into believing that God just wants us to be happy and wealthy and if we just ask Jesus into our heart he’ll give us anything we could ever want, no strings attached. This Social Gospel is damning, and traditionally it has arrived when a difficult doctrine is compromised (i.e. the atonment in the late 19th, early 20th century).
The fact is, election is a difficult doctrine. It hurts our human pride. We lose control of our destiny. We can’t tell God what He can and cannot do. This goes completely against our sensibilities as “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”, “rugged individulistic” Americans. But when it is properly understood, it is one of the most beautiful doctrines in all of the Christian faith.
The problems arise when we forget that our job is not to determine who is elect or not, but simply to take the undiluted Gospel to all creatures, and let the Holy Spirit do his thing.
I’ll answer your second question first. Everywhere there is a command given in Scripture, the free will of human beings is assumed. If humans do not have free will, then every command of Scripture is superfluous and disingenuous, if not outright deceptive. Why issue a command if there is no freedom to obey or disobey? Why, in fact, does God spend so much time trying to work with, in, and through humanity if they do not have the freedom to choose whether they will work with him or against him? I find that the concept of free will is so pervasive in Scripture as to be a basic assumption of every single one of its authors, so fundamental to their worldview and writings that it need not be made special mention of. In fact, the onus is on the determinists to argue that free will is not in Scripture.
As for your first question, I would say that there is a vast difference between God knowing who will put their faith in him, and God determining who will believe. The former implies an internal knowledge that is utterly passive; the latter implies an active and arbitrary choice. And of course, if God chooses some to be saved, then he chooses the rest to be damned. There can be no middle ground. If one believes in predestination, then one must believe in double predestination. Reformed theologians like Sproul and Edwards have said as much.
This, of course, brings us to the place where we believe in a God who arbitrarily and eternally condemns people for committing sin that he predetermined them to commit while intentionally and actively depriving them of the saving effects of Jesus’ death and resurrection. This is the God of Calvinism. This is not the God of Jesus Christ.
I believe that God is sovereign. I also believe that he is sovereign over his sovereignty. I also believe that God does not exercise his sovereignty in ways that would seem sovereign and glorious to sinful human beings. I believe this because I believe in Jesus, and as I’ve said elsewhere, “Jesus replaces the God you thought you knew.” As Paul said, the cross of Christ is foolishness to Gentiles and a stumbling block to Jews, but the cross was also where God was most fully glorified. The incarnation, teachings, life, cross, and resurrection of Jesus prove that God pursues glory and enacts sovereignty in ways that are contrary to the ways of men. A cross instead of a throne. Rather than wine, his own blood. Born a slave and a peasant rather than a prince in Caesar’s palace. Rising from the dead and showing himself to believers only, rather than to Pilate or the Jewish leaders who crucified him. (Think about that!) One of the many problems with Calvinism is that it fails to reckon with the reality that God defines sovereignty and glory differently, one might even say oppositely, than do we.