Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Responding to Criticism of Irresistible Grace

I have written in the past on the subject of Irresistible Grace and the fact that the Bible sets forth an “order of salvation” that includes regeneration preceding faith. That is, in our sinful condition we are totally unable to respond to the gospel in faith and repentance and therefore God awakens faith in us by causing us to be “born again.” Though I don’t see the need to spend more time presenting this doctrine I do see where misunderstandings can make this doctrine sound grossly unbiblical.

In the 2nd edition of Norman Geisler’s book Chosen But Free there is an appendix meant to refute the idea that regeneration precedes faith. The problem with this section is that instead of going to the passages that relate to the new birth, providing a definition of the new birth, and seeing what relationship it has with faith, Geisler equates regeneration with other parts of conversion and demonstrates the relationship between faith and those particular acts. I will give a few examples and the show why this isn’t a problem for my position on the subject.

One common example is Geisler’s use of passages that clearly teach that we are justified through faith (Romans 3:24-25, Romans 5:1). Calvinists do not teach that Justification precedes faith. It is absolutely truth that we are justified through faith in Christ. However, Justification is not equal to salvation even though it is at the heart of the gospel.

The second most common example from the book is use of evangelistic passages in the Bible that tell people that they must have faith and repent in order to be saved (Luke 13:3, John 3:16, Acts 16:31). This comes from the misunderstanding that one must be capable of something in order for God to hold a person responsible for their level of obedience (see Matthew 5:48 for example). In evangelism we declare that the right response to the gospel is faith and repentance, however, we do this with the understanding that in order for that person to obey the gospel God has to change their heart and allow them to see the beauty of the gospel, therefore allowing them to choose Christ freely apart from slavery to sin and Satan (2 Corinthians 4:3-6, Ephesians 2:1-7).

Finally, a quote of Emery Bancroft is provided:
Man is never to wait for God’s working. If he is ever regenerated, it must be in and through a movement of his own will, in which he turns to God as unconstrainedly and with as little conscientiousness of God’s operating upon him as if no such operation of God were involved in the change. And in preaching we are to impress upon men the claims of God and their duty of immediate submission to Christ, with the certainty that they who do so submit will subsequently recognize this new and holy activity of their own will as due to a working within them of divine power. (Cited in Chosen But Free 2nd edition 239-240)

The problem with this quote (or at least Geisler’s use of it) is that it is an unhonest and extreme view of free will. Of course we should never wait on God to supernaturally push us into obedience of any kind. We do what we God commands us to do realizing that we cannot do it apart from His work in us (Philippians 2:12-13). But just follow the logic of what is being said in the quote. “If [man] is ever regenerated, it must be in and through a movement of his own will…” But the gospel of John seems to differ. When speaking of the new birth/regeneration John says that it is an act “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13). In chapter 3 Jesus tells Nicodemus that the new birth is an act of the Spirit’s free will (John 3:8) but doesn’t seem to go out of his way to say anything about this being caused by man’s “free will.”

But what is more disturbing about Geisler’s use of this quote is that implies that a person does what God requires of him and then dishonestly attributes his obedience to God. He says, “…they who do so submit will subsequently recognize this new and holy activity of their own will as due to a working within them of divine power.” A person cannot truly do something “unconstrainedly “ and “of their own free will” and it, at the same time, be doing it “by divine power” unless they are themselves divine.

So what’s the point in bringing this up? It’s not to bash Dr. Geisler, he has been very helpful for me in several areas of study, just not when it comes to systematic theology. But the point really is to demonstrate that even great minds can miss the point of reformed theology. It isn’t about telling people to wait for God to do everything for them or trying to negate our own responsibilities in the Christian life. Instead, we recognize the widespread teaching of Scripture that we are unholy and incapable of pleasing God on our own yet God graciously saves us from our sinful ways and His wrath. He does so for His glory.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

No comments: