Enjoying God

Crossway Interview on Chosen for Life (7)

May 31, 2007Crossway: In the book you articulate the differences between Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists. How would you summarize the basic differences?

One would be hard-pressed today to actually identify an authentic hyper-Calvinist. A number of my Arminian friends tend to think that anyone who doesn't believe in libertarian freedom of will or who does believe in unconditional election must be a hyper-Calvinist. It's become something of a slur, almost a religious cuss word. But hyper-Calvinism needs to be understood historically, according to which it has consistently been used of those who deny the obligation of the preacher to proclaim the gospel sincerely and universally to lost souls. The hyper-Calvinist would contend that we are responsible to preach the gospel and call unto faith and repentance only those who give signs that they are already regenerate. Hyper-Calvinism argues that since faith in Christ and repentance from sin are beyond the ability of the unregenerate, they are not the duty of the unregenerate. Therefore, it is not our duty to call them to what they cannot of themselves perform. I see no basis for this in Scripture. I believe God would have us proclaim the good news of Christ and the urgency to repent and believe to all without discrimination or hesitation.

Crossway Interview on Chosen for Life (6)

May 31, 2007Crossway: What is the primary discrepancy between the Calvinist and Arminian views of the Ordo Salutis?

The most basic difference is in the relationship between faith and regeneration, or what most Christians call the experience of the new birth. Arminians believe that faith precedes regeneration (or at best, is simultaneous with it). In other words, we believe and then God blesses us with the new birth. The Calvinist insists, rightly so in my opinion, that since we are spiritually dead and hostile toward God and disinclined to any act of worship or repentance that the Spirit must first impart new life, regenerate and renew our inner being, all of which results in the human act of faith and repentance. So, although some may argue that the "order" or "process" of how people are saved isn't important, I contend that it is. It indicates who, ultimately and decisively and finally, is responsible, and therefore deserving praise, for the salvation of the soul.

Crossway Interview on Chosen for Life (5)

May 30, 2007Crossway: How does the doctrine of unconditional election preserve the integrity of divine grace?

This is a controversial point that many of my Arminian friends will dispute. But the fact remains, there is a massive difference between how the two systems of thought conceive of the ultimate, final, and decisive cause of salvation. Arminians believe that God's grace makes salvation possible for all but guarantees it for none. In other words, grace puts you in a position where you are now able to choose Christ. But of course you may choose not to choose him. The ultimate, final, and decisive factor is your choice. Calvinists, such as myself, insist that grace does far more than make salvation possible. It certainly does that, but it also secures the positive act of faith and repentance in the heart of an individual. Therefore, the ultimate, final, and decisive factor in whether or not I'm empowered and effectually enabled to believe in Christ is the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit. I must believe in order to be saved, and I will believe because of the effectual grace of God working in me. In the Arminian system, there is a point beyond which grace cannot go in the saving of a soul. In the Calvinist system, grace goes all the way to effectually secure and guarantee the salvation of a soul.

Crossway Interview on Chosen for Life (4)

May 30, 2007Crossway: You present a solid, biblical case for grace and repentance as gifts of God. In the process you show that a failure to see grace and repentance as gifts results in a sinfully pragmatic approach to salvation. Will you provide us here with an overview of your insights?

The bottom line is that if we believe faith and repentance are ultimately in the power of the human will, we will become pragmatic in our evangelistic methods. In fact, we have! If we think a tactic or strategy will work, i.e., will bring someone to make a decision for Christ, we use it. It doesn't matter if it is biblically illicit or manipulative or involves undue pressure or detracts from the necessity and sufficiency of divine grace. So long as it gets the evangelistic job done, we approve it. All too often, this results in spurious "conversions" and a man-centered practice in which we congratulate people for their choice rather than praise God for his.

Crossway Interview on Chosen for Life (3)

May 29, 2007Crossway: Please summarize for us the connection you make between total depravity and common grace.

Many people reject the notion that we are, by nature, utterly sinful, selfish, and morally corrupt. The reason isn't hard to see. As bad as things are, we all know non-Christians who are decent, law-abiding, creative and contributing members of society. So how can we say they are "totally" depraved? The answer, of course, is God's common grace, which is to say, his non-saving mercy and kindness that is imparted to those who reject the gospel. God graciously restrains the otherwise sinful and depraved inclination of their wills and also positively enables them to do "good" things for the sake of society as a whole. God can (and does) work in the unregenerate soul to inhibit the full expression of their sinful nature. He also imparts to them gifts, creativity, wisdom, and countless other moral virtues, none of which, however, necessarily leads to salvation. This is his "common" grace.