Calvinists believe that salvation is “all of God,” which is to say not only that he has planned and accomplished salvation in Christ, but that he “effectually calls,” “irresistibly graces,” “regenerates,” and “grants faith” only in his elect or chosen people. This is to state that faith is not a possibility for all sinners as a response to God’s gospel. Only those predestined to salvation are granted faith by God. But if the Calvinist claims the elect sinner is “altogether passive” 1 with respect to their salvation, what sense can be made of the overwhelming amount of scriptural evidence that states that all sinners are called upon to believe and in believing are engaged in appropriating to themselves God’s all-sufficient salvation by the exercise of their wills? Furthermore, how would the Calvinist answer the obvious question that is raised by their position, which is, “Who does the believing?” And we ask that, not in the sense of who functions as the “believing” entity, but who is the agent responsible for believing what God is saying to the sinner through his Word? Let us have no verbal gymnastics here! No verbal legerdemain!
The author George MacDonald wrote the following about how God works in a person’s life: the interaction between God’s love and a person’s will.
“Nor will God force any door to enter in. He may send a tempest about the house; the wind of his admonishment may burst doors and windows, yea, shake the house to its foundations; but not then, not so, will he enter. The door must be opened by the willing hand, ere the foot of Love will cross the threshold. He watches to see the door move from within. Every tempest is but an assault in the siege of Love. The terror of God is but the other side of His love; it is love outside that would be inside – love that knows the house is no house, only a place, until it enter.” 2
What of this God sent “tempest” that George MacDonald talks about? Does it not presuppose the active will of man that resists but may also respond in genuine individuality and sincerity to God’s will? And even if this resistance is only for a time, it is still of the nature of resistance, and as such therefore cannot be of the class of divine preordination of “whatsoever comes to pass,” for then we have the confusion that God himself has ordained the resistance to his will and Word and at the same time is inviting the sinner – even commanding the sinner – to come to Christ and be saved. The gospel contains an invitation to come to Christ and be saved. For the non-elect hearer, such an invitation would make God out to be in conflict with his own sovereign decretive will.
Rather, what we see is a divine initiative of love in action that limits itself at the point of requiring a personal response from the one that is loved. This free-will reciprocity is of the very nature of love. It is a “siege of Love” that goes only so far until “the door move[s] from within.” That siege is demonstrated in Christ’s death on behalf of all sinners (Rom 5:8) and active in the work of the Spirit that always accompanies the gospel message and whose aim is to help and include the sinner, never exclude the sinner from the salvation offered in the gospel. It is precisely because of the content of the gospel message as an expression of God’s love and an invitation to all to come to Christ that all can and should respond in faith.
The Reformed Calvinist’s presuppositions of deterministic sovereignty and unconditional election have led us into a theological and logical quagmire. Again, it is a serious misunderstanding of faith to deny its possibility and reality as a genuine response for any sinner on the basis that if this were a human capability then it would be a meritorious work. And this is the crux of the theological error regarding the nature of faith for the Calvinist – it understands faith, if it be of the nature of a free response of the sinner to the gospel, as meritorious. Hence, faith is thrown back into the darkness of God’s eternal decree of predestination to salvation. Faith is required to be part and parcel of one’s unconditional election which was a divine decision made at the foundation of the world. Hence, no one is priviy to thier own unconditional election or that of anyone else. So faith must be a phenomenon granted by God only to those he has predestined to salvation lest they boast in contributing to their salvation and rob God of all the glory in their salvation. This opening of the door from within “by the willing hand” is mistakenly defined as a contribution to one’s salvation, a work that would earn God’s favor, or make the sinner a co-worker in their salvation. For the Reformed Calvinist, faith must be part of an unconditional election precisely because election, that is, one’s salvation, is unconditional in an absolute sense. But this is a complete distortion of the doctrine of election and the nature of this “siege of Love,” and it is impossible to reconcile this with the full testimony of the scriptures to the nature of faith. The scriptures present the view that salvation becomes a reality for a person when persons themselves genuinely respond in faith to God and Christ. Faith is not granted by God in certain individuals due to them having been predestined to salvation as if it is “the gift of God” only for them. Rather, faith is always portrayed as the appropriate response of the sinner to God the creator, initiator, and provider of salvation that is made possible within the sinner only by God’s Spirit who is always present affirming the proclamation of God’s purpose and plan of salvation in Christ. It is therefore a possibility for all sinners who hear the gospel to believe it and be saved. And although faith is not separated from the actual preaching of Christ with regard to intellectual assent, as if one cavalierly has the option to believe or not believe as they please – that would amount to a distortion of the content of the gospel message with respect to the imperative nature of salvation and faith – yet, even though an imperative – as an invitation, as a call to come to Christ, it always remains the response of faith which is a surrendering to the work of another on one’s behalf. This surrender, only the person themselves can do.
Theologian William G. MacDonald (not to be confused with George MacDonald above), explains the different aspects and dynamics of faith. Note his observation that if faith is “a gift of God,” as Calvinists claim, then that demands concluding that God “believed” for you. It makes faith redundant at best and at worst meaningless. It negates the individual’s will that is so integral to the biblical witness to true personhood. MacDonald writes,
“Furthermore, we conclude that: (1) Ordinary faith (fiducia) is made a possibility for man on the basis of the first creation, and need not await the new creation; Abraham and the Old Testament “believers” corroborate this observation. (2) The Christian faith (fides), the content of the gospel, may rightfully be considered a gift from God and the result of the new creation began with Jesus’ resurrection. (3) It is proper to consider objective faith, that is, the Christian faith (fides), as a gift from God; and it is improper to consider subjective faith, that is personal reception and retention of the gospel, as “a gift from God.” It does not glorify the grace of God to predicate it more than the biblical revelation itself claims. Such ambiguity ultimately undermines the whole divine-human encounter. To treat subjective faith (fiducia) as “a gift of God” demands the explication that God “believed” for you, as if your soul were nonexistent, and you were totally insignificant, over and beyond all your sinfulness.
Let us be clear about this matter. What is “the gift of God?” Answer: “Jesus” as the object of faith historically given, and the “Spirit” as the result of faith internally given.” 3
Paul affirms this understanding by constantly contrasting works of the law with a righteousness that comes by faith. By doing this Paul is affirming that works of the law are meritorious by nature, but faith is not, even though it remains a response of the sinner to God in Christ that involves an intentional, decisive act of the will. In Philippians 3, Paul lists his credentials by which he may take “confidence in the flesh” and yet in verse 9 points out a righteousness “that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.” (ESV) The faith spoken of here is not something granted by God to a select few. It is spoken about in the context of works of righteousness in contrast to faith. Both are responses to God, but faith is of a completely different nature than works. Works of righteousness have their point of reference in one’s performance which strives to earn right standing with God, but faith has its point of reference in self-surrender and trust in the work of God in Christ for righteousness. Faith, as a posture of humility before God, is still the responsibility of the sinner because its nature is that of acknowledgement, trust, and personal surrender to another for the accomplishment and application of salvation. Salvation cannot be accomplished through one’s own efforts if only given the rules and regulations of “the Christian religion” to obey. Faith is necessary. (cf. Gal. 2:15ff.)
The above is in direct contrast to a Calvinist understanding of faith. What are the practical effects of the Calvinist’s position on faith? Note the admission of a lack of confidence and the confusion and ultimate contradiction in the position of Presbyterian theologian Jane Douglass. She writes,
“I think our experience is that faith comes as a gift from God; we understand that God comes to us with God’s grace–to which we can only respond with gratitude. And Reformed predestination is a way of saying God has taken the initiative in giving us these gifts. 4
Note here that the assertion about the nature of faith is rooted in personal experience. Personal experience provides the basis for understanding faith. “…our experience is that faith comes as a gift from God.” But is this how the Bible portrays faith? Douglass continues.
“Those of us who are called to faith can give thanks for God’s initiative in dealing with us so graciously.”
Note three things here. The first is that “called to faith” means the “effectual call.” Secondly, there is her presumption of her uncondtional election. All she can do is presume that she is among the elect. Thirdly, although expresssed in “thanks” to God, the exclusivity or special dealing of God “so graciously” with those who presume their uncondtional election smacks of an ironic spiritual pride of place. She continues,
“But most contemporary Presbyterians are reluctant to assume that we know anything about God’s purpose for those who seem to have rejected faith. We perceive it to be dangerous to move beyond the mystery of predestination to try to explain what God has not revealed.”
Here Douglass cops out of the clear ramifications of her doctrine of predestination. It is clear what God’s purpose is for the non-elect. By not saving them, God condemns them for their sin (which he caused them to commit), and therefore they will spend eternity in hell. Douglass does not want to face up to the entialments of her Calvinist theology. Even Calvinists bristle at their own beliefs! Contrary to the assertion that we should not “move beyond the mystery of predestination” and that God has not revelaed what God’s purpose is for those who seem to have rejected faith, we have seen from John 3:14-18 that God has clearly revealed the reason why people reject the faith and how God responds to them. They do so because they decide to reject him, and they “shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on [them].” (Jn. 3:36. See also Jn. 8:24; 2 Thess. 2:9-12, et al. (cf. Jn. 20:24-31). We can see therefore how the Calvinist’s understanding of predestination as a theistic determinism, injects confusion into salvation and fails to coherently account for the passages that speak clearly on this matter. We will see this in this next quote by Douglass. But please keep in mind that all determinisms have been refuted in previous chapters on this site. That includes theistic determinism and therefore Calvinism itself. Jane Douglass continues,
“The whole history of theology reflects tension in relating a Biblical concept of calling or election or predestination with an equally Biblical doctrine of human responsibility. The Reformed tradition has held that sinners are responsible for their sinful acts even though they are unable to turn away from them without the gift of God’s grace. But it has also insisted that God’s grace transforms the will so that it can freely obey God’s will, though not perfectly.” 5
Certain persons, based on their predestination to salvation, are given the “gift of faith” which is now here described as being “called to faith.” Those who have been predestined have been dealt with “graciously” by God (contrary to what we studied about grace from the Scripture in the previous chapter). We were told above that predestination is mysterious as to those “who seem to have rejected faith.” One way to look at this is that they have not really rejected faith, rather they just have not been given this “gift” that “comes from God” because they have not been predestined to salvation. One cannot “reject” what one was not divinely enabled to receive. But it is worse than that. Another way to look at this required by Calvinist determinism is since God has ordained “whosoever comes to pass,” these persons have been predetermined by God to not believe and reject Christ and salvation. But look at what the Calvinist does here. The Calvinist can yet speak about salvation being genuinely offered to the non-elect. These are those who are “unable to turn away” from their “sinful acts” because God has decided that the “gift of God’s grace” is not for them. Yet, God holds them responsible for rejecting faith and salvation. We can see how disingenuous and incoherent this is. Hence Douglass uses the word “seem” in the phrase “those who seem to have rejected faith.” Astutely, and somewhat honestly, the issue of the purpose of the existence of the reprobate, i.e., those not predestined to salvation and therefore not given faith, is recognized as a problem by Douglass and addressed in the usual manner with the plea to ignorance, the flight to “mystery” and the description of the problem as a “tension.” The plea to ignorance is odd because most Calvinists are sure of the purpose of the reprobate. Their purpose is to allow God to display his wrath and judgment against sin. Regarding the “tension” between predestination and human responsibility, the problem is not what we don’t know in this matter, but what we do know, that is, we know the character of God who is loving and gracious to all, without partiality, and that faith in Scripture is always presented as a person’s responsibility, even as, and especially as a sinner. After all, God, out of his love for the world, sent his Son to die for the world, so that those who believe might not perish but have everlasting life (Jn. 3:16).
Therefore, there is no “tension” when the Scripture is not interpreted deterministically. There is no “tension” when Scripture is interpreted with a concern for logical and moral coherence. And that is the bottom line here. As we have discovered in previous chapters the Calvinist interprets the Bible upon a faulty hermeneutic. They accept a hermeneutic of incoherence as valid. Their interpretations need not exhibit coherence, consistency, or non-contradiction. The “tension” Douglass mentions is a Calvinist euphemism for interpretive contradiction. It is the result of the Calvinist’s theistic determinism which has God not only predestinating certain people to salvation, but predestinating all things to occur as they do. In this context, to say, “…sinners are responsible for their sinful acts even though they are unable to turn away from them without the gift of God’s grace” is to speak nonsense. It is an informal contradiction of the more formal version, “sinners are responsible for their sinful acts even though they are not responsible for their sinful acts.” That is in effect what Douglass is saying. But Douglass, like all Calvinists, do not see their contradictions as hermeneutically meaningful. They do not consider them to be an indication of invalid interpretation. They are willing to accept a hermeneutic of incoherence. But this is not a responsible hermeneutic and it betrays one’s interpretations as invalid.
Therefore, we can agree with Douglass when she says, “We must continue to work theologically at relating God’s calling or predestination with human responsibility,” but the problem is that the Calvinist has jettisoned sound logical and moral thinking in their interpretion. They are logically and morally log-jammed within their own deterministic theological system. The way out is to approach the scriptures afresh while doing theology in the company of good philosophy, that is, with logical and moral coherence as an essential hermeneutical concern.
1 The Westminster Confession of Faith. Section X titled “On Effectual Calling,” begins by stating,
“1. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone and giving them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.”
The 2nd point of this section reads as follows.
2. This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.”
See G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), 10.10.2. p. 88.
2 C. S. Lewis, ed., George MacDonald: An Anthology; 365 Readings, (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), “God at the Door,” 44.
3 William G. MacDonald, “The Spirit of Grace” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1975), 88-89.
4 Jane Dempsey Douglass, “Predestination: A theologian discusses the history of a much misunderstood tenet.” Interview by Vic Jameson. https://www.presbyterianmission.org/what-we-believe/predestination/ Last accessed 8/21/2018. This article originally appeared in the September 1985 issue of Presbyterian Survey (now Presbyterians Today).
5 Ibid.
The Truth of the Gospel 