Can man resist the grace of God? Yes. We do it all the time. In fact, as a result of the Fall (Genesis 3), we are by nature inclined away from God’s grace…and everything else about God. Our desires are contrary to God and we act according to those contrary desires. Necessarily.

So what do we mean by the phrase “Irresistible Grace,” the I in TULIP? Simply speaking, it means that God can and does override our resistance to his grace with his grace in order to change us from being enemies of God to being children of God. In fact, if we are to become children of God, it is necessary that he overcomes our deadness and hatred of him.

This is when most raise the “free will” objection. Assuming that the whole matter of salvation is based upon personal choice, this doctrine becomes an affront to something basic in their understanding of man. But if the doctrine of Total Depravity (Radical Corruption) is true, then the will is not free. Rather, it is in bondage and subject to the same corruption as the rest of man’s being. This does not mean that we don’t act according to our desires. We do. But our desires are not holy desires, they are desires that are tainted by the same sin that has produced death in us. If we choose according to our true, fallen desires, we will choose death and destruction over God every time. We are, after all, children of wrath by nature (Ephesians 2).

When Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,” he makes the sweeping statement that we are incapable of choosing him…that is unless the Father “draws” him. The common understanding of the word “draw” here is something like a “wooing.” It is important to note, however, that the Greek word doesn’t mean that. The word “draw” is the same word used when Peter drew his sword in defense of Jesus at his betrayal and arrest (John 18:10). It is used in John 21:11 when Simon Peter “went aboard and hauled the net ashore….” In Acts 16:19 Paul and Silas were “dragged…into the marketplace before the rulers” after casting out a demon from a profit-generating slave girl. Acts 21:30 uses the word also: “Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut.” It seems unlikely in any of these uses of the word that “wooing” is what is being spoken of.

Another objection is that God saves people against their will. According to this objection, people are dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom of heaven, even though they may not want any part of it. “God would never impose himself on someone against their will,” the objection goes, “it just isn’t gentlemanly.” While this is really a significant category error, Spurgeon answered it best when he said that “God does not save us against our will, but he does make us willing.”

Not only can God do what he pleases, he does.

“Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases.”  Psalm 115:3

“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all tings according to the counsel of his will…”  Ephesians 1:11

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”   Romans 11:11

Unless God, in his sovereign grace, does overrule our hatred and death and evil desires and bent toward destruction, we’re hopeless. Unless God’s saving grace is irresistible, none can be saved.

For a couple of months an idea has been percolating and last night it finally turned into a reality. A new blog has been developed to which I will be a contributor. What that means for The UberGoober is this:

• I’ll continue posting through the final two points of the TULIP…because I will simply never sleep again with this undone.
• After this series of posts, I will discontinue posting here and all subsequent posts will be at the new blog site.
• All of the content of this blog has been transferred to the new blog, so you can dig through the archives there and find everything that is here.

The other contributors to the new blog are my friends David Bryant and Al Stout, both formerly of AfterDarknessLight. The content from their former blog has also been transferred to the new blog so there is opportunity aplenty to get acquainted with their writings and personalities.

The new blog (bookmark it!) is After the Handbasket. I invite you to have a look see, comment at will, and tell all your friends. For those of you who have been kind enough to add The UberGoober to your blogroll, changing it to reflect the new blog would be quite kind of you.

Blog Stats

Total Views: 15,000

Just checked the stats on the blog. It hit 15,000 just now. Thanks.

Changes are coming in the days ahead for this blog - changes that I think will be a great improvement and will expose the interested to broader perspectives and more lively (and perhaps controversial) discussion.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

I know a lot of people who would say, “I’m a 4-point (or a 4 ½-point) Calvinist.” The point that hangs them up is the “L” which stands for Limited Atonement. This point is the most disputed of the doctrines that comprise the TULIP, even amongst Calvinists. In this post I will attempt to give a brief synopsis of Limited Atonement, provide some alternative language that may be more helpful, present a logical defense of the doctrine, and point to some of its limitations — all in fewer than one thousand words. Here goes.

The word limiteditself has a negative connotation and suggests to someone not familiar with the five points of Calvinism that the atonement was in some way less than complete. While this is certainly not the teaching, it is not difficult to see how people get there. When the term limited atonement is used, it refers to the intent of what Christ accomplished on the cross. That is, Christ’s death was not intended to atone for everyone’s sins, just those of the elect (see unconditional election). While this may sound a bit harsh, to say the opposite, namely, that Christ died for everyone, is potentially far worse. If Christ died for everyone (that is, every single person who ever lived), then everyone is saved. Or, everyone has the potential for being saved, and need only to appropriate the benefits of the cross by some means. The difficulty here is with man’s total inability to do anything to appropriate anything spiritual.

Rather than thinking in terms of the limits of the atonement, language that is more helpful may be particular redemption or definite atonement. That is, Christ’s atoning work accomplished precisely what was intended by the Father, namely, to redeem those people who had been chosen from before the foundation of the world to be rescued. This makes Christ an actual Savior rather than a potential Savior.

A simple logical exercise has been helpful for me to think this through.

Christ died for either:

1. All the sins of all people.
2. Some of the sins of all people. 
3. All the sins of some people.

If Christ died for all the sins of all people, then it necessarily follows that all people are saved. This is universalism, which the Bible does not teach. And if we insist that he died for all the sins of all people, and all they have to do is believe, isn’t their unbelief a sin? And if it is a sin, did Christ not die for it? This is not a biblical option.

If Christ died for some of the sins of all people, then there are sins left un-atoned for. And if all sins are not forgiven, either the individual is left to make atonement for their own sins (by works of righteousness), or they end up not being completely forgiven and end up in hell. This not only makes atonement impossible, but would make the cross of Christ a cruel hoax and worse. There would be no hope.

The third option, that Christ died to atone for all of the sins of some people, is the only logically defensible one. All the sins (including the sin of unbelief) are completely atoned for on the cross, and, therefore, those people are surely rescued from all their sin. Christ’s death actually accomplished the salvation of all those for whom he gave his life. Christ loved the church (the called out ones) and he gave his life for her (Ephesians 5:25). It also puts the entirety of our salvation (from start to finish) in the person and work of Jesus Christ, and we rest not at all upon our own efforts or goodness. We need this kind of Savior.

Now there is a real sense in which Christ died for the whole world. This can be seen in two ways:

1. He died for people of all kinds (Jew, Greek, male, female, young, old, rich, poor, slave, free). He did not come to redeem a certain class of people, but all people.
2. His death is the means by which he is reconciling all of creation to himself. This second point is beyond the scope of this post, but is a very important one.

Some limitations of the doctrine are not found within the doctrine itself, but in how it is employed by some people. There are those (although I’ve never actually met one) who could say that we are only to preach the gospel to the elect, because it is for them that it is intended. First, this is not biblical. Mark’s account of the Great Commission says, “And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.’” John Gill, himself accused of being a hyper-Calvinist, said that we are to preach the gospel promiscuously. Second, we don’t know who the elect are. There is no mark or name-tag that says, “Elect: Preach to Me.” (To my theologian friends, insert your nuances here.) So we proclaim Christ and the gospel of his kingdom to all people. If God enlivens faith in them to believe through the good news, then we know they are his and have always been his.

Interestingly, the charge that this doctrine kills evangelism is often leveled by people who have effectively killed evangelism in their own lives through their own lack of belief in the gospel. Biblical illiteracy, love of this world, unbelief in Christ, and a poor understanding of who God really is are far worse enemies to evangelism, and far more pervasive.

So we affirm God’s particular redemption of his people. Without it, how lost we would still be.

“Now, I understand how people can say that this pattern of God’s selectivity does not seem fair. Why does he choose this person and not that one? Doesn’t this make it all seem quite arbitrary? I understand this complaint, and I take it seriously. But frankly, it does not seem to be a complaint that is properly lodged against Calvinism in particular. It is better understood as a complaint about the facts of life. When a non-Calvinist Christian friend asks me how I can believe that God favors some people over others, it seems to me sufficient in many cases simply to point to the person’s own life. Let’s say that she was born in 1950 in Illinois, and that from her earliest days she was nurtured by the Christian community: they provided her with teachers and books and friends who encouraged her growth in the faith. In all of this, her life is much more privileged spiritually than, say, a person her own age who lives, say, in an isolated rural village in North Korea. And when my friend testifies to the grace of God in her life, she has no qualms about thanking the Lord for the special blessings that have been directed her way - blessings that are, in fact, missing in the life of her North Korean counterpart. Has Calvinism invented the notion of divine selectivity, or are we simply acknowledging something that seems to be really there in the way we experience our lives?”

                                  (Richard J. Mouw, Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport, p.33)

The word “election,” or some form of it, is all over the Bible. God’s people are often spoken of as “chosen,” “foreknown,” “called out ones” (or saints), and “elect.” To argue against God’s choosing a people for himself is simply to deny what is plainly presented in Scripture. God chose Noah and his family over all the others to be the ones to survive The Flood and repopulate the earth. God chose Abram (later Abraham) to be the one through whom the nations would be blessed. God chose Isaac (the child of promise) over Ishmael (the child of the flesh). God chose Jacob over Esau. God chose Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah and on and on. That God chooses is not disputed except by the least educated or the dishonest. The question that emerges is: On what basis does God choose one over another?

Why, for instance, did God choose Abraham over his neighbor Scooter (of whom the Bible records exactly nothing!)? Why did God choose to bestow his love on Jacob, a liar and a cheat, over his older brother Esau who was the rightful heir of their father Isaac’s estate? Why did God choose Moses, a murderer and reluctant leader, to lead his people out of Egyptian bondage? On what grounds does God make his choices?

There are a few possibilities:

1. There is something about the people God chooses that makes them more attractive to God - ethnicity, status, gender, that sort of thing.
2. God chooses people based on some sort of spiritual criteria, once met obligates God to choose them.
3. God chooses whomever he will, for reasons that are not obvious to us.

Let’s think it through. If God chooses based on some criteria such as ethnicity, status or gender (option 1), there is a lot of inconsistency in the narrative of both Old and New Testaments. While we do see Israel as God’s chosen people, not all who are Jews are of the elect (notably Judas Iscariot), nor are all of the elect “of Israel” (notably Rahab the harlot). Gender and status are clearly not factors by what can be plainly discerned from even a casual reading of Scripture.

Now some would say that God does choose based on spiritual criteria (option 2). Such things like sincerity, choosing him, being a good person, etc. are commonly cited as examples of reasons why God would choose one over the other. (I am not addressing such claims as Universalism or Annihilationism in this post because they are way outside the present discussion. If a person makes those claims, we’re talking about an entirely different bowl of clams) But the question that is standing in the corner waving like Arnold Horshack is: Where are those standards spelled out in Scripture?

It has been argued that God chooses those who chose him first. A couple of pretty significant problems emerge here. 1) If Total Depravity(and therefore total inability) is true, then we’re incapable of choosing God because our bent is always and decidedly against him. 2) This is not the order in which Scripture presents things. It is absolutely true that we are commanded to worship God, and it is absolutely true that God commands all men everywhere to repent. But because of the corruption of sin and the corresponding lack of ability, it is equally true that we can’t do this.

[A big caveat here because this is one of those natural questions that come up: Will God reject me if I choose him if I'm not one of the elect? The simple answer is: If you genuinely choose God, this indicates that you are one of the elect. To assert that God rejects those who earnestly desire him is foreign to Scripture. I have never actually heard anyone make this assertion, but the question does come up frequently.]

Others may say that God chooses based upon our moral improvement. That is, we act good enough, we keep the rules with enough regularity and rigor, and God will reward us for our efforts. This is a big deal. Many Christians live as though this were true. “I’ll prove to God how much I love him by [fill in the blank], then he’ll really, really like me.” Evangelism, good works of all sorts, prayer, Bible study, giving money to the church - all of these things mean nothing to God if they are done in order to merit something from him.

When Isaiah talked about our righteousness being like filthy rags, he was telling us that our works mean absolutely nothing. It is truly Christ’s righteousness that matters. We are incapable of impressing God on any level. So to think that we can make ourselves good enough by our own deeds is foolish. As John Piper said once, “There will be no boasting in heaven.” We will not be able to stand for one second before God if what we bring are what Martin Luther called “our damnable good works.”

Paul said in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

This brings us to the third option, namely, that God chooses whomever he will, for reasons that are not obvious to us. God saves us by his shear grace, and he enables us to trust him through faith - a faith which he gives us.

The best illustration of all of this is found in Romans 9.

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Now, there is a lot in this chapter to chew on, but the salient point is that it is God’s sovereign choice to have mercy upon whom he will have mercy, and to harden whom he will. God is redeeming a people for himself, for his glory, and by his grace.

This causes us distress because our sense of “fair-play” is offended, but we must remember that God’s ways are not our ways. We are at the mercy of the only one who can show mercy. God chooses and saves those whom he is pleased to choose and save.

This is the “U” in The TULIP. Unconditional Election. God elects a people, not based on anything in man, or works he may perform. It is all of grace.

To the great delight of all the children in our home, the Christmas tree was finally assembled and decorated a couple of days ago. My most excellent wife had been trying to make time to get it done for the past few weeks, but scheduling logjams and our annual bout with the plague were obstacles of the insurmountable variety. Daylight finally dawned and the tree was up. {tada!}

This being the baby’s first Christmas with any real awareness of anything beside naps and nursing, she’s quite taken with the tree. It has become for her a source of mixed feelings, however, as she experiences a stinging sensation on the back of her little thigh every time she enthusiastically picks one of the shiny little baubles from the tree and makes it bounce into the kitchen.

The other girls spend a lot of time gazing hypnotically at the lights…no doubt running through some sort of Christmas fantasies in their fertile imaginations. As much as I complain about the inconvenience of it all, it is really a beautiful thing to watch the kids get caught up in the magic of the moment that is Christmastime.

Then there’s Sam. Autism enables him to see things through different lenses and it frequently serves as a source of joyful amusement in our home. This year he has named the Christmas tree. His name is Oswald. The ornaments and lights are his costume, and the star on top of the tree is Oswald’s favorite hat. He loves Oswald.

Don’t tell anyone, but I may be starting to like Christmas a little bit.

Christmas. It’s a Wonderful Life. Bunnies. Thirty seconds. Click now.

[I couldn't resist. HT: BeckyJ]

We often think of our need for a Savior in terms of our own sins. What I mean by this is that we tend to recall the “bad things” we’ve done and see this collection of misdeeds as the reason we need forgiveness. It isn’t that we don’t need to be forgiven of these things (we certainly do!) but there is something deeper, something more wicked than the sum of all of the worst things we’ve done. In fact, it isn’t our “sins” that are our primary problem. Something darker, deeper and deadlier is at work in us.

When we speak of Total Depravity (the “T” in TULIP), what comes to mind is often the acts of such wicked men as Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and other infamous bad guys. We may think of certain categories of people like murderers, rapists, child molesters, telemarketers. In other words, we think of the worst of the worst - people who have acted in heinous ways - as the truly depraved. To apply a term like “total depravity” to our dear old grandma or the delightful, well-mannered little girl who lives next door seems overly harsh and downright wrong. In truth, however, the Bible describes us all as having the same wickedness as those notorious offenders above. Granted, not all of us act out our depravity in such extreme ways, but the corruption that infects every one of us at our root is the same. Though we may try to deflect this charge (”I’m just not that bad a person!”), the testimony of the Bible convicts us (even if we don’t “feel” guilty).

Paul, writing to believers in Ephesus, said, “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins…and [you] were by nature children of wrath….” David, in his great prayer of repentance said, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.” In Romans 3 Paul gives a scathing indictment against all mankind, saying such things as, “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.”

When the Fall occurred (Genesis 3), it was not just Adam and Eve who suffered the consequence of their sin. It was passed down to all their descendants. A corrupt tree cannot produce good fruit. Generation after generation of mankind is reproduced with a nature that is spoiled with the effects of sin. Our desires, our minds, our wills are all corrupted.

This sounds absolutely horrible! That’s because it is. And it gets worse. The effects of this condition (called “sin”)  is so extensive that it makes us utterly incapable of coming to God on our own.

Jesus himself said, “No one can come to me to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” Isn’t that chilling? “No one can.” Again Paul, “No one seeks after God.”

As it turns out, we really do need a Savior. I’m going to borrow an illustration from R.C. Sproul:

It has been said in pulpit after pulpit that man is drowning in the ocean. He’s going down for the third time, and unless someone helps him, he will surely die. The problem with this is that the Bible doesn’t describe us as drowning or dying. The testimony of Scripture is that we’re dead! We are at the bottom of the ocean, already dead, lying with an anchor on our chest. No matter how many lifelines are thrown, we are incapable of grasping for it…we’re not even capable of knowing it is there! We don’t need someone to throw us a life-preserver, we need someone to breathe life into us.

In Romans 7:24-25 Paul says, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

Oscar Wilde said, “An idea that isn’t dangerous has no business being called an idea at all.” Ideas are dangerous things, and this is certainly no less the case when the ideas are about God. As we think through some of the implications of Calvinistic ideas, some questions naturally emerge. These are good and proper questions to ask. Whenever I hear people ask these questions, regardless their conclusions, I know that they are at least getting the sense of what is said.

There are several questions that come up more than others, so I thought I would put up a short post listing the questions, and opening it up for discussion.

1. If God chooses some for salvation, doesn’t that necessarily mean that he is choosing some for hell?
2. If God has already chosen those who are going to be saved, why do we bother with evangelism and missions?
3. What about man’s “free will?” Doesn’t this make us robots?
4. Will God save someone against their will?
5. Why does God choose some and not others?

Interact at will with these topics. I will be posting on the individual points of the TULIP shortly, and these issues will surface in that discussion as well.

SDG