God Loves… Himself

But, one might ask, what of the person’s inability to believe? After all, one is saved when one believes. However, Jesus tells us that if a person truly believes then that person truly loves.

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41 “I do not receive glory from men; 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43 “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? (John 5:39-44).

Jesus is teaching in this text that men are unwilling to come to Him in order to have life. (v. 40). He then tells them that He knows that they do not have the love of God in them (v. 42). He then asks them (v. 44) how they can believe when they receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that is from God? We seek the glory from and for the one that we have a supreme love for. If we seek our own glory, it is because we love ourselves supremely. If we truly seek the glory of God, it is because we love God supremely. One cannot believe in truth unless that person comes to Christ for life and that life is in seeking glory from and for God. In fact, Christ is saying one does not have the ability to believe apart from seeking glory from God. One will only seek the glory of God in truth if one loves God and seeks His glory rather than loving and seeking the glory of self.

John 17:3 sets the same truth out in a slightly different way, but also in a way that is instructive of John 5: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” We know that a person must believe to receive eternal life as the following verses set out:

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (John 5:24).

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:40).

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44).

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life” (John 6:47).

Knowing God is surely connected with faith and belief. Knowing God is also more than a cognitive knowledge, but it is more of an intimate knowledge and that of union with another. Eternal life, then, is to be in communion with God. “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life–2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us–3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ” (I John 1:1-3). In fact, these verses show that Christ Himself is the eternal life and it is only in communion with the Father that one has eternal life.

I John goes on to teach us that the love of God is seen in keeping His word and that is how one knows that he or she is in Him: “but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him” (I John 2:5). The text then goes on a few verses later to say this: “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death” (I John 3:14). The person that has eternal life is the person who loves believers. The person who does not love is a person who abides in death. Then I John 4:8 sets the matter in concrete for us: “The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” The clarity these verses bring us can hardly be denied. On the one hand we must believe in order to have eternal life. Yet Christ Himself is eternal life. Eternal life is defined in John 17:3 as knowing God and Christ, yet we are told that a person who does not love does not know God. 1 John 5:20 almost completes the picture for us: “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” Knowing God and having eternal life is far more than just an intellectual knowledge, but it is to be in Christ and it is to be in fellowship with the Father through Christ. I John 1:1-8 tied in with I John 5:20 simply explode with meaning for our subject at hand. Eternal life is not a matter of an intellectual belief; it is a matter of being in Christ and being in communion with the Father in love.

Galatians 5:6 also shows this in terms of what true salvation is: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” All of these verses (and many more not listed) bring a fuller understanding to what eternal life really is and what it means to truly believe. It also shows why humanity is indeed described in Scripture as having inability. The inability of humanity is not a weakness or defect in any part of man whether inward or outward, it is a moral issue of man being at enmity with God. As long as man hates God, man will not believe or love God. When the truth of God is set out before human beings, it is resisted. The more truth that is set out about who God is, the more it is resisted. Man’s inability is directly linked and inextricably intertwined with his animosity and hatred of God. That is why he is morally inexcusable for what he does and that is why we must teach the true nature of faith.

Man must know that he is dependent on God for love for God as there is no source of love in man or anywhere else in the universe but God. It is not until God pours out the love of Himself in man (Romans 5:5-8) that man will love God. It is not just a matter of a man working up some form of belief; it is a matter of man believing in such a way that he loves God. That is not possible apart from the work of God. No free-will can ever love God apart from the true source of love, which is God Himself. No man or woman can ever work up love from a heart that hates God. Man’s inability is his absence of love and the presence of hatred for God. An intellectual belief will not overcome that and only the presence of eternal life in the heart who is Christ Himself will enable a person to believe. Eternal life is defined as knowing God. One must believe and love God in order to know Him. Man is unable to believe of himself and must be enabled to do so. Inability is at the heart of the Gospel because if man sees that he cannot, it is good news that Christ can.

Why is man obligated and responsible to believe when he cannot? Jonathan Edwards helps us here by distinguishing between natural ability and moral ability. This distinction is not original with him, but he sets it out for us in a clear way and those who followed him used it extensively. According to Archibald Alexander, William Twisse, the prolocuter of the Westminster Assembly, John Howe, and Isaac Watts used this distinction. Andrew Fuller made extensive use of it as well. The natural ability of man is that in which he can be blamed or praised. An example (drawn from Edward Griffin) is that of a stubborn child. If the child has the power to walk and yet will not walk because it is stubborn, we know that the child has the power or ability to walk but does not because of the sin of stubbornness. Yet if the child is paralyzed from a physical difficulty, we do not speak of the child as being able to walk. The man who is a drunkard certainly has the physical power to put down his drink, but there is an inability that goes to his heart and desires. Is there anything of the human nature whether inner or outer that keeps people from loving God other than a heart that hates God? Where did that heart come from? Are men to blame for having a heart that does not love God or is that the fault of another?

All try to blame God for their inability or lack of ability, but that is just a sign of a heart that is at enmity with God. Sinners do have power to love in one sense as they love themselves and the things of the world. The lack of understanding comes from disinclination to or enmity with God. The lack of affections for God comes from a love for self and the world and is against God when He stands in opposition to self. The lack of will or choice for God is not from a lack of natural ability as man makes choices all day for himself and his sin. That lack of will is from a moral disposition. It is possible for sinners to obey God outwardly and yet they do not. This is why those that love the Gospel must always be on the alert for those who have an outward reformation of life because it might be the self doing the outer things out of love for self rather than love for God.

In one sense we must stress that unbelievers have ability in order to show them the true nature of their inability. If we use the word “inability” and do not explain what it means and what it does not mean, the sinful hearts of man will blame God rather than see the true nature of his inability as moral and blameworthy. If we teach inability without showing the true nature of man’s ability, we are not teaching the true nature of man’s inability. Romans 8:6-8 sets out the teaching of inability for us: “For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” In verse 7 we see that the unbelieving mind does not subject itself to the law of God “for it is not even able to do so.” In verse 8 those “in the flesh cannot please God” (highlighting mine). The words “able” and “can” are words of ability.

We must think through this text carefully. If an unbeliever is not able and in fact cannot please God, then surely (we are told) that person is not responsible. But the Reformed position is that the person’s inability only arises from his enmity with God and hatred toward Him. It is not that the person does not have the physical strength or that anything is wrong with him or her in any way except that the person is at enmity with God. What is wrong with a person that does not love God? That person hates God and loves self. What is wrong with a person that does not love his or her neighbor? It is because that person loves self and hates the God that the other person is made in the image of. The inability is in the person’s moral disposition. That is utterly devastating to the Arminian position. The person does have ability in all ways except for enmity with God. Can that person just decide to love God when in fact that person hates God? Is a person’s will really free if he or she is governed by hatred for God? If morality is ultimately determined by love for God, where does that leave a person when she or he hates God?

It is without question that all who believe in God will love God. All who do not believe or have faith in God through Christ will not love Him. The connection between faith and love cannot be separated. Where there is one the other will be there also. Man’s inability to believe is linked to his hatred of and enmity with God. One will never trust one that one is enemies with. The Arminian position requires that a person believe God and love God when in fact one hates Him. Biblical faith is not just to believe a fact, it is to believe with the whole heart and that out of a complete submission which requires trust and love. The inability of man is because man is at enmity with God and not because of any other inability. All the inabilities of man flow from man’s enmity with God. We will pick this up in the next BLOG.

The issues at hand require some very careful walking. There is no doubt that this is a hard issue and yet it is a vital issue. I would simply ask that people read this very carefully and move slowly in this section. A quote from William Cunningham is very instructive:

One of the leading forms which, in the present day, aversion to divine truth exhibits is a dislike to precise and definite statements upon the great subjects brought before us in the sacred Scriptures. This dislike to precision and definiteness in doctrinal statements, sometimes assumes the form of reverence for the Bible,–as if it arose from an absolute deference to the authority of the divine word, and an unwillingness to mix up the reasonings and deductions of men with the direct declarations of God. We believe that it arises,– much more frequently and to a much greater extent,– from a dislike to the controlling influence of Scripture-from a desire to escape, as far as possible without denying its authority, from the trammels of its regulating power as an infallible rule of faith and duty (The Reformers and The Theology of the Reformation, 525)

There must be some precision in statements in order to set out the truth of a doctrine and to set out what it is not. The subject of today’s BLOG is the Reformed view of responsibility. There is no way to set out what every aspect of every person has believed about this, and this is not to pretend that all people that have claimed to be Reformed have believed the same thing. Nevertheless, what is going to be attempted is a statement that many Reformed people in history have held. Readers are to be warned that some of what is going to be said might sound like Arminianism, but in fact it is not. Again, please read the whole BLOG and the ones to come very carefully before passing an overall judgment.

While it does sound like Arminian teaching to some, it is true that without ability of some kind there is no obligation or responsibility of some kind. What we have to do is to distinguish between a certain kind of ability and then a certain kind of inability. Distinguishing in this way sets out what the true nature of the Reformed teaching of inability is. It may sound like fine distinctions to some, but this is vital to understanding the real issue. Let me start this part of the discussion with a quote from B.B. Warfield. “We may point out, therefore, that the doctrine of inability does not affirm that we cannot believe, but only that we cannot believe in our own strength” (Shorter Writings, Vol II, p. 726). This quote helps us from the start to at least get the idea that we must distinguish between certain kinds of ability and the true nature of inability. It is not that man is unable to believe and do certain things because he lacks the ability to do so from anything of his body, but this inability is something spiritual and moral. But we still must assert very strongly that inability stresses that man cannot believe in his own strength.

We can gain some insight from the Law of God which was never given as a way of life. The Law came in to show man his sin (Romans 5:20; 7:7-8; Galatians 3:19). The Law was meant to show man his death in sin and lead him to Christ and the way of life. Man has never had the ability to keep the Law in and of himself. The Law is to be proclaimed to all men in order to show them their need for Christ as Savior from sin and of Christ as their life in order to keep the Law. The Law is preached in order that men may see that they cannot keep the Law and so flee to Christ. The doctrine of inability in this case is to show men that they need to be delivered from their ideas of strength and ability and to rest in grace and Christ. The call to men to believe is also of the same nature. We preach to men who cannot believe and yet we tell them that they are commanded to believe. Why do we command people to believe in Christ when we know that they cannot? It is because there is nothing wrong with them in one sense and so they should believe in Christ. But we also preach to them so that they can see that they cannot do it in their own strength and will go to Christ for grace to fulfill their obligation. Men are to believe because he is obligated to believe with what Christ gives him to believe. We are to believe with the strength of Christ.

For the moment we will let this rest here and pick this up in the next BLOG. What we must learn is that the commands of Scripture never teach us what we can do in and of our own strength, but what man must do from the strength and ability of Christ. Human beings do not have the ability to love God from themselves as that must come from God. Only when Christ is our life and living in us do we have any strength to please God.

As we move somewhat slowly into this issue, we must remember where we have been and where we are going. The first step was to see that Arminian theology sets out the doctrine of free-will and responsibility as meaning that for a person to have responsibility means that the person has ability. As we will see in future BLOGS, Reformed people in history have meant that man has ability in many ways but in a way that heightens his condemnation in light of his inability. Arminian theology sets out that man has some ability which must be exercised in order to be saved. We also previously saw that a word can stand for a vast amount of theology that is vital to the Christian faith.

What we want to see today is just how important and even vital the link is between man’s responsibility and free-will in terms of the glorious Gospel of grace alone. This is part of the movement to show that anything linked to grace in terms of what is necessary to salvation is at least in words a denial of the Gospel. We also want to show just how vital Reformed theology is to the Gospel and how it must never be compromised.

The necessity and sufficiency of grace in the Gospel is set out by Scripture when it always attributes salvation to grace and grace alone. Salvation is by faith in order that it may be by grace (Romans 4:16). When we see Scripture setting out salvation being by faith, we can know it is by faith in order that it may be by grace alone and so by Christ alone to the glory of God alone. The doctrine of the responsibility of man and his free-will and/or inability cannot be separated from the Gospel. If a person does have free-will in the sense that Arminian theology holds, then this is not consistent with grace alone for salvation. If man’s responsibility implies ability as indeed Arminian theology sets it out to be, then this is inconsistent with grace alone for salvation. This was the primary issue at the Reformation and it continues to be the primary issue. A person can have a belief in something called Reformed theology and still not hold the heart of it if this part is denied. Luther himself said that this was the most important issue and hinge on which all turned (Bondage of the Will, p. 319 in 1957 edition). If we miss this, we have missed the vital link of the Reformation and of Reformed theology.

William Cunningham, in his Historical Theology, puts it this way: “The subject of free-will is, as it were, the connecting link between the doctrines of original sin and of divine grace-between men’s natural condition as fallen, involved in guilt and depravity, and the way in which they are restored to favour, to holiness and happiness” (p. 569, Stillwater edtion). This truly gets at the heart of the issue and sets out our doctrines for us with a degree of clarity that cannot be done in another way. How is man restored to the favor of God and to holiness and happiness? Is it based on something within him or totally on the grace of God? Does man have some little part of him that is still good and so is able to respond to God without the work of grace or does man have to have grace in all ways and even the power of grace to respond to God?

Speaking of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer and others, Packer and Johnson said that “all the leading Protestant theologians at the first epoch of the Reformation, stood on precisely the same ground here. On other points, they had their differences; but in asserting the helplessness of man in sin, and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them, these doctrines were the very life-blood of the Christian faith (p. 58). On the same page the same authors quote another author approvingly: “Whoever puts this book down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain.” While some have wondered why I responded with vigor to this issue, it is because I see it in line with the Reformers. This is the very life-blood of the Christian faith. It is not just a slight issue with minor ramifications; the doctrines that are attached to the Arminian view of responsibility are at odds with the Gospel of grace alone.

We are all at a crossroads. We can take seriously what all the Reformers thought was an essential part of the Gospel or we can ignore this for the sake of peace. We will either seek for peace and a form of unity in all corners or we can begin to seek what God says in His Word on this issue. If evangelical theology stands or falls on this issue what are we going to do? If this is the very “life-blood of the Christian faith,” what are we going to do? This issue must be studied and prayed over by each person. This must be something more than an intellectual belief; this must be the conviction of the soul. What one means when teaching about responsibility and grace is the heart of the Gospel and the character of God. The Gospel is what it is in order to display the character and glory of God. Any deviation from the Gospel is an attack upon the sufficiency and glory of God. The Gospel depends completely on the sufficiency of God or mostly on it. This issue and the word “responsibility” is, therefore, utterly vital.

The issue about words is a very important issue. It is not just that a word may mean something; it is that it does mean something. But even more, one word can mean multiple things. Some words have more than just a definition. They have concepts, philosophical and theological issues wrapped up in them. With some words it is virtually impossible to deal with the word just as a word but instead it must be dealt with as a concept or theology. That is true of the word “responsibility.” It is no longer just what this word has meant, but it has to do with what the meaning of this word is in the context it is used and then the theology behind the word. There are other words in history that have been used like this.

During the Reformation and ever since the Reformation the word “justify” has been an issue. During the Reformation the pioneer Reformers and Roman Catholics did battle over that word. Roman Catholics said that the word had to do with what God accounted to the person according to each person’s works. A person could only be justified if the person did enough works to be justified. The Reformers said that the word “justify” had a legal or forensic meaning in Scripture and so God justified sinners by declaring them just based on the righteousness of Christ. That issue is still with us today.

Another word that was battled over in the Reformation was the word “alone.” Martin Luther in particular said that a person was justified by faith alone. Roman Catholics argued that Luther’s view was false and that a person had to have works to be justified. Luther said that Scripture taught that a person was justified by faith apart from works and so that is one side of what he meant by faith alone. Another aspect of the word “alone” is that a person is justified by faith alone in order that it may be by grace alone. Unless a person is declared just by God through faith alone, justification and salvation are not by grace alone. If justification is not through faith alone and by grace alone, it will not be by Christ alone either. It would also not be to the glory of God alone. That one little word “alone” is a shining little word that is necessary to defend the Gospel of grace alone and Christ alone. It was not and is not wrangling about words, it is about the Gospel.

Going back into history over one millennium earlier than the Reformation, we find another word that split Christendom into pieces and caused much squabbling and suffering. In reality, however, there was a truth and a theology that had to be defended with a word. This was during the time of Arianism which taught that Jesus Christ was a created being and not of the same substance as the Father. Modern day Arians are known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses in that they teach more or less the same thing about Christ. The Council of Nicea was convened by Constantine in the year 325 and was the first ecumenical council. It was attended by 318 bishops and many others. While Arianism did not have many committed followers at this council, he did have Eusebius of Nicomedia who had much influence with and over Constantine. The chief opponent of Arianism was Athanasius. The council decided on a statement that in part that had some important words (highlighted & italicized) for the history of the Church:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousias) of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousion) with the Father, through whom all things were made…

This creed (just part of it listed above) was signed and Arius was banished. Constantine decreed the death penalty for those who would not agree to this creed. While it appeared that the battle was over, it was not. Eusebius of Nicomedia signed the creed and retained his status with Constantine. The political wrangling began and Arius was allowed to return. Athanasius was ordered to reinstate Arius at Alexandria and was banished when he refused to do so. The political and religious wrangling continued but we must understand that the truth of the Gospel was at stake. Athanasius was banished five times and would not give in though the whole world seemed to be against him. He fought this battle until he died.

What Athanasius began to see, however, is that the word homoousion was not adequate in and of itself. While it meant that the Father and the Son were one substance, which Athanasius was willing to die for, it did not protect the equally important teaching that the Father and the Son are in some way different. What they had to do, then, was to adopt the word homoiousion. If you read the words carefully, you will notice that there is only a one letter difference (“i”) between the two words. That one letter, however, changes the word from meaning the “same substance” to “of similar substance.” In fighting Arianism that one letter meant the difference between truth and heresy. In fighting other issues the word that was heresy in one sense (homoiousion) was needed to preserve the truth in another sense.

Another group of theologians came on the scene and were called “The Great Cappadocians.” They were Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa. They were instrumental in helping people wrestle with the difference between the Greek and the Latin which was causing some problem in understanding. They called attention to the distinction between ousia (the Greek equivalent of “substantia”) and hypostasis (translated into Latin as “persona”). The teaching basically boiled down to this: In God there is only one ousia (substance), and that one substance or ousia is shared by the three hypostases (Persons) of Father, Son, and Spirit. In other words, these great battles over words were actually great battles over the nature of the Trinity and the full deity of Christ. The orthodox understanding and teaching of the Trinity and the deity of Christ rest on those battles to a large degree.

The battle for the Gospel is continuing today. One word that we must grasp and understand is “responsibility.” We must understand what it means and what it means in its written context and its theological context. Some may think that this is just wrangling over words, but it is not. There are huge theological issues that revolve on this word in the sense that they revolve around its meaning. The understanding of justification by grace alone through faith alone rests in some way on how this word is understood. How we understand the character of God is in some way influenced by this word. How we understand the depravity of man and the will is greatly influenced by how we understand this word. Perhaps it is best to say that how we understand this word is determined by what we really believe about other things. This is not wrangling over words and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, this already is a mountain that is set before us in Scripture and in history. We must not ignore what is going on by the use of slippery language. We must defend the Gospel at all costs.

The issues surrounding the BLOGS on Morris Chapman’s article in SBC Life deserve an answer and a response. For another critique of his article, click here.

First, I am convinced that the Gospel was seriously compromised by what the article said and implied. Second, I should have been more careful in being sure that the BLOGS were not a personal attack. They were not intended as a personal attack but were written as a defense of the Gospel of grace alone. I made more of a personal reference to the writer at least once. For the personal reference I apologize and for any personal slight that I made. The intent was and should have been kept to the issue at hand. Third, there were some serious misunderstandings of the BLOGS. I was accused of hyper-Calvinism. I strongly deny this but I personally think that those men have the right to say what they did on this particular site and appreciate the fact that they obviously meant what they said. If we leave things as intellectual arguments alone, we show that we do not love the truth. While I am convinced that I am not in reality what they say, I do appreciate their willingness to stand up and say what they said with conviction. Fourth, there have been some concerns raised in some circles about the tenor of the way the discussion progressed or digressed. It has been suggested that we try to keep a better tenor and tone of the discussions. Therefore, there will be a few more rules set out in the future about things like this.

Next, it has been suggested that the Spurgeon Baptist Association of Churches was not accurately represented by what I wrote. Some said that that they were not represented and others said that they were represented. It is indeed my personal views and writings rather than what everybody in Spurgeon believes. I personally believe that it is very healthy to discuss theological issues and even butt heads in order to get at the truth. If we are so sensitive that we cannot be wrong, then it is possible that what we believe as true is also from a motive of self. We are to love the truth and pursue the truth even if it means wrestling with ourselves and others. We are also supposed to speak the truth in love, but then again we have no love in reality if we have no truth. It takes love to have truth and truth to have love. We must always remember that we are to love God first and as an overflow of knowing Him in truth and love, we will love in truth.

Last, if anyone has a problem with what I write, please contact me personally or respond to the BLOG itself here. It is biblical to go to the person you have the problem with and not go to others first.

Hopefully with the air somewhat cleared, we can get back to the issues that need to be dealt with. What we have to do at this point is to look at some of the major issues. The first is responsibility. We need to look and see how Reformed theologians and pastors and Arminian theologians and pastors have used this word or concept. Even more than that, we have to get a grasp of the teaching on inability in order to see the real issue. It is only when these issues are seen in a fuller sense will the real problems with the statement of “the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man” or “the grace of God and the responsibility of man” as “necessary elements in salvation” can be really seen. These are not silly little issues and this is not wrangling about words. This will take several BLOGS and the whole position will not be seen in just one or perhaps not even a few. The heart of this argument (giving reasons) is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While you may not believe that, that is what Luther and the Reformers said. It is also the teaching of Jesus and Paul. It is much of what the Gospel of grace alone is all about.

The Arminian use of the word “responsibility” has meant and still includes the meaning of ability. Over and over again we are told that to have true responsibility a person has to have ability. If you want to search this out, simply go and read any book on Arminian theology and you will find it to be so. By definition an Arminian is one that believes in free will which in that sense includes the ability of the person to do what God commands. Listed below are quotes from several sites where you may read this exact point along with a few quotes. (Note, I am not necessarily endorsing all of the content on each of these sites but simply using what is written there in an attempt to show the difference). If you had any doubts before, surely these quotes will wipe those away. Calvinists and Arminians differ on what “responsibility” means and in fact it is at the heart of the issues between the two theological camps. This is not just an issue about wrangling with words, it is an issue that is at the heart of the Gospel of grace alone.

“Arminians deny the total depravity of man, in that they hold that the will of man is free and has the ability to choose Christ and the salvation that is in Him. Such teaching is false and delusive. The will of man is free only to choose according to his moral nature, and as his nature is under the dominion of sin, man chooses accordingly. “Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation-, so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.” (‘Confession of Faith,’ Ch. 9, Sec. 3). ‘The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them.”

Man’s Inability and Responsibility

Arminians hold that responsibility infers ability, and therefore maintain that when sinners are called upon to believe and to repent, that they have the power to do so. Such teaching is false to the core. The call given in the gospel, and given by all who preach the gospel in its fullness, to believe and repent is the outward call. It is the prerogative of the Holy Spirit alone in His internal and regenerating work to make the outward call effectual. ‘Many are called, but few are chosen.’ Although man through the fall lost his ability, he is still responsible and accountable to God, and because responsible he is duty bound to make use of the outward means and ordinances appointed by God, and the efficiency of which is dependent alone on His power. God has established a connection between the means and the end desired. He commands us to use them, and He has promised to bless them. To separate the means from the end, which the Lord has ordained for the salvation of sinners is to be guilty of separating what the Lord has joined. A despising and a neglecting of the means is a despising of the salvation the means bring before us. ‘And how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?

Reference: click here.

III. AN EVALUATION OF THE DOCTRINES At the heart of the controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism is the emphasis on the sovereignty of God by the Calvinists and on the free will of man, or human responsibility, by the Arminians. Arminian theology teaches that man has free will and that God will never interrupt or take that free will away, that God has obligated Himself to respect the free moral agency and capacity of free choice with which He created us. Calvinism, on the other hand, emphasizes that God is in total control of everything, and that nothing can happen that He does not plan and direct, including man’s salvation. Both doctrinal positions are logical, both have Scriptures to back up each of their five points, and both are, in my opinion, partially right and partially wrong. As Philip Schaff put it in his History of the Christian Church, “Calvinism emphasizes divine sovereignty and free grace; Arminianism emphasizes human responsibility. The one restricts the saving grace to the elect; the other extends it to all men on the condition of faith. Both are right in what they assert; both are wrong in what they deny. If one important truth is pressed to the exclusion of another truth of equal importance, it becomes an error, and loses its hold upon the conscience. The Bible gives us a theology which is more human than Calvinism and more divine than Arminianism, and more Christian than either of them. ” (New York, Charles Scribner’s & Son, 1910, VIII 815 f)

Reference:click here.

1) Arminianism denies the imputation of sin; no one is condemned eternally because of original sin. Man is condemned because of his own sins. This appears at variance with Romans 5:12-21. (2) Though variously interpreted, Arminians generally teach that the effects of the Fall were erased through prevenient grace bestowed on all men, enabling individuals to cooperate with God in salvation. There is, however, no clear indication of this kind of prevenient grace in Scripture. (3) Arminians teach that the Fall did not destroy man’s free will; furthermore, they teach that prevenient grace moves upon the heart of the unbeliever, enabling him to cooperate with God in salvation by an act of the will. While it is true that man must bear responsibility in responding to the gospel (John 5:40), man’s will has been affected because of the Fall (Rom. 3:11-12; Eph. 2:1); man needs God’s grace in order to be saved (Eph. 2:8; Acts 13:48; 16:14). (4) Arminians relate predestination to God’s foreknowledge of man’s actions. They stress that God knew beforehand who would believe, and He elected those. In Arminianism, election and predestination are conditioned by faith. The word foreknowledge (Gk. prognosis), however, is basically equivalent to election (cf. Rom. 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:20). The data of God’s foreknowledge originates in advanced planning, not in advanced information. (5) Arminianism stresses human participation and responsibility in salvation: recognition of sin, turning from sin, repentance, confession, and faith. For Arminianism, repentance involves change of actions, forsaking sins, whereas the biblical word repentance (Gk. metanoia) means “change of mind.” Although the stress on human responsibilities is significant, if it involves multiple conditions for salvation, this stress becomes a serious matter because the purity of salvation-by-grace-alone is then at stake. The sole condition of salvation stressed in scores of Scriptures is faith in Christ (John 3:16, 36; Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9, etc.).

Reference: click here.

In some inexplicable way God has seen fit to incorporate human freedom and responsibility into His all-inclusive plan. Even though the Lord is in sovereign control of the details in His creation, He never forces any man to do anything against his will. The fact that He judges sin means that He is not responsible for the commission of the sins He judges. When a person sins it is because he has freely chosen to do so. Similarly, when someone is confronted with the terms of the gospel, he can freely choose to accept or reject Christ’s offer of forgiveness of sins. Because it is free choice, he will be held responsible for the decision he makes (see John 12:48). In my view, personal and moral responsibility require free will. While I disagree with those who say that our wills are in total bondage, I am not implying in my use of the terms “freedom” and “free will” that humans are autonomous. We do not control the fundamental realities of our lives (e.g., our time on earth and our abilities), and yet our choices are ours.

Reference: click here.

At the heart of the controversies between Calvinism and Arminianism is the emphasis on the sovereignty of God by the Calvinists and on the sovereignty (free will) of man – or human responsibility – by the Arminians. Calvinism emphasizes that God is in total control of everything and that nothing can happen that He does not plan and direct, including man’s salvation. Arminianism teaches that man has free will and that God will never interrupt or take that free will away, and that God has obligated Himself to respect the free moral agency and capacity of free choice with which He created us.

Reference: click here.

According to the Calvinist belief, man’s inclination to sin has ensnared his will. Even though he can make choices according to his nature, man’s character has been so corrupted that he can never choose what is pure. Calvinists point to verses in Mark 7:21-23 and Romans 3:10-12, which say that man’s heart is utterly wicked and that no one seeks God because they have all wandered down the wrong path. Thus, man cannot accept Christ without God’s intervention. In essence, Calvinism states that man only has the free will to choose evil and that he does not have the capacity to choose God. On the other hand, Arminianism says that man’s sinful nature has not completely hindered his ability to choose God. Rather, Arminians believe that man can freely choose good or evil. They read John 3:16 and emphasize the phrase “whoever believes in Him”, as it seems to indicate man has a choice to accept or reject Christ. In John 7:17, the prophet writes, “If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” This highlights man’s capacity to choose God. Arminians say that, through choice and faith, man can receive God’s gift of salvation.

Reference: click here.

As you can easily see from the sites and quotes above there is a huge difference in the way that Arminians and Calvinists view the word “responsibility.” The difference is so vast that when applied consistently these positions teach a different gospel. If a person writes the “sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man,” he might mean two very different and distinct things. One view is consistent with the Gospel of grace alone. The other view is consistent with grace and works being the gospel at hand. When dealing with differing gospels or differing views of the Gospel, there is no just wrangling with words. This is a deadly serious issue and eternal issues are at stake. We must treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.

A DEFENSE OF CALVINISM
NOTE: THIS MESSAGE IS FROM C.H. SPURGEON’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY, VOLUME 1.

The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, “Salvation is of the Lord.” That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.” What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ-the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own Private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.