More often God’s justice waits for years or decades, as with Jezebel, who arranged Naboth’s murder in order to seize his vineyard. About fifteen years later she suffered the justice that had been foretold.

God’s delay, however, is never forgetfulness. Rather, it is mercy that grants opportunity for repentance—mercy that can last even until the death of those who deserve justice.

God’s Discipline of His Own

God’s discipline of His own children—also a manifestation of His justice—may likewise fall quickly or after delay, depending on how much time He mercifully grants for repentance. Recall that Jacob, who deceived his father and brother was himself deceived seven years later by his father-in-law regarding his fiancée’s sister. When he awoke the morning after his wedding and saw Leah at his side, he surely realized he had reaped what he had sown.

Recall also that about twenty-one years passed between the time Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery and when they found themselves bowing before him in Egypt.

All of these examples demonstrate God’s mercy and justice.

Delay of divine discipline, however, is never eternal. Paul warned Christians that they will reap what they sow (Galatians 6:7), and he also solemnly wrote:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad (2 Corinthians 5:10, emphasis added).

The final two words of that verse—“or bad”—are often ignored. But they shouldn’t be. Paul believed that Christians will be repaid for both good and bad deeds. Obviously, repayment for good will be something positive while repayment for bad will be something negative.

For that reason, we can expect milder forms of “making some bow down at the feet of others” even in heaven. Surely there will be apologies there by Christians who unrepentantly mistreated other Christians. There will also be disciplinary consequences that are, thankfully, milder than hell.

And this offers some solace when we suffer persecution from unbelievers or mistreatment from believers. We always prefer their repentance, which would reconcile them to us and to God and would hopefully lessen the consequences they suffer. But in the absence of that repentance, you can expect that unbelievers who unrepentantly hated you will one day bow at your feet. Moreover, believers who unrepentantly mistreated you—through deceit, gossip, slander, or some other means—will apologize and also bear the just consequences of the wrong they’ve done. Warning Christians about how they treat one another, Paul wrote, “For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality” (Colossians 3:25). It is a sure bet.

A False Gospel

If the gospel you believe has convinced you that there are no consequences for sin once you become a Christian, you have believed a false gospel. Jesus warned His closest disciples, “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds” (Matthew 16:27, emphasis added). Notice Jesus did not add, “Of course, ‘every man’ doesn’t include any of you!” Neither did He say that He would repay “only unbelievers according to their deeds.” Neither did He say that He would repay “every man according to his good deeds” but, “every man according to his deeds.”

Jesus said the same in the very last chapter of the New Testament: “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done” (Revelation 22:12, emphasis added). Again, He did not say, “to render to every man according to the good things he has done,” but “according to what he has done.”

This is what Paul elaborated when he wrote that every Christian must appear before the judgment seat of Christ to be recompensed “according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10, emphasis added).

“But,” some will object, “Jesus said that He would bring His reward with Him. Rewards are prizes for good behavior!”

The word translated “reward” in Revelation 22:12, however, does not necessarily refer only to positive blessing. The Greek word is misthos, which appears twenty-nine times in the New Testament. Its core meaning is payment given in exchange for work. Figuratively it is used for divine recompense, whether positive (reward) or negative (punishment). At least three times in the New Testament misthos is used to speak of a negative repayment:

“Now this man purchased a field with the wages [misthos] of iniquity…” (Acts 1:18, KJV, emphasis added).

“…suffering wrong as the wages [misthos] of doing wrong” (2 Peter 2:13, emphasis added).

“…who loved the wages [misthos] of unrighteousness” (2 Peter 2:15, emphasis added).

Jesus’ words in Revelation 22:12 could therefore be rendered, “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My payment is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done, whether good or bad.”

Peter Amens Jesus and Paul

The apostle Peter, who heard Jesus warn that the Son of Man would repay every man according to his deeds, believed Him. That is why he wrote:

If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth (1 Peter 1:17).

This idea seems foreign in many modern Christian circles. Nevertheless, by the Spirit Peter stated three facts: (1) we are on the earth temporarily; (2) we should conduct ourselves in fear during that temporary time; and (3) the reason we should conduct ourselves in fear is because God our Father will impartially judge our deeds. If Jesus is not going to judge our bad deeds, there would be no reason for that fear.

That future judgment, of course, does not concern the deeds we committed before we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ; those are forgiven. Peter believed that Jesus’ followers have been purified from their “former sins” (2 Peter 1:9). That judgment concerns deeds left unconfessed and unrepented.

If we believe the apostle Paul, our deeds as Christians also have everything to do with our ultimate salvation:

God…will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also of the Greek. For there is no partiality with God (Romans 2:6–11, emphasis added).

Paul believed God will repay both good and evil deeds, and that His repayment for good will include glory, honor, peace, and eternal life, whereas His repayment for evil will include tribulation, distress, wrath, and indignation. How could Paul have been writing about anything other than heaven and hell?

This truth is tragically foreign among many professing Christians influenced by the modern “false-grace” gospel. It is, however, as biblical as Matthew 16:27, Romans 2:6-11, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Peter 1:17, and Revelation 22:12.

Food for thought!

The Calvinist Solution: Two Kinds of Atonement

The Calvinist resolves this dilemma by claiming that Jesus did indeed die for everyone, yet in different ways for the elect and the non-elect. For the elect, Jesus purchased saving grace, granting them everything needed for salvation—including irresistible grace, regeneration, and the gifts of repentance and faith.

For the non-elect (those predestined to damnation), Jesus died only so that they might enjoy “common grace”—the temporal mercies and blessings that every person experiences during life. On this basis Calvinists such as Piper interpret Paul’s words that God “is the Savior of all men, especially of believers” (1 Timothy 4:10). According to Piper, Jesus saves all people from the immediate eternal punishment they deserve for as long as they live on earth, but He saves only the elect from eternal punishment after death (p. 14, para. 6).

I hardly think, however, that this makes Jesus much of a “Savior” to the non-elect. It would have been better for them never to have been born than to “enjoy” such a temporary “salvation.” The “common grace” God extends to those predestined to eternal damnation portrays Jesus more as a sadistic, deranged maniac than as a true Savior to them.

Thus the Calvinistic interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:10 is unnatural, forced, and far-fetched. A more natural reading is that, because Jesus died for all people, He is the Savior of all men, yet “especially of believers,” because they alone receive and enjoy the full benefits of the salvation He offers to everyone.

This interpretation harmonizes far better with Paul’s earlier words in the same letter: “God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3–4, emphasis added).

In contrast to the Calvinistic claim that God offers His saving grace to only a select few, the apostle Paul declares that God offers His saving grace to everyone:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age (Titus 2:11–12, emphasis added).

Piper’s Arguments Against Unlimited Atonement

Piper claims that the non-Calvinist view of Christ’s atonement is incompatible with the doctrines of total depravity and irresistible grace (p. 13, para. 5 through p. 14, para. 3). He is entirely correct—because those two doctrines themselves are erroneous. Piper argues that if Christ’s atonement purchased only the potential of salvation for sinners, then no one could ever be saved, because people would be left to overcome their total depravity by their own power and regenerate themselves apart from the irresistible grace purchased by Christ on the cross.

Since I have already shown the grave errors of the Calvinistic doctrines of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace, there is little need to refute Piper’s flawed logic here. His reasoning rests on false premises. God does not save people by bestowing irresistible grace, and no one needs to overcome Calvinistic total depravity because no such total depravity exists. No one needs to regenerate himself, because regeneration does not precede faith. God regenerates those who believe, as Scripture plainly teaches.

Furthermore, to imply that non-Calvinists believe Christ’s atonement purchases only the potential of salvation is highly misleading. Christ’s atonement purchases for everyone what is necessary for salvation—forgiveness, regeneration, eternal life in heaven, and more. It does not, however, purchase the forcing of people against their wills to believe in Christ, for that is neither God’s desire nor His plan. God has given every person a free will because it is His will that each individual exercise the right to believe in Christ or to reject Him. If God wanted robots, He would have created robots. He did not. He wants a family that loves Him. Apart from freedom of the will, genuine love is impossible.

Jesus died for every person’s sins, yet that does not automatically mean everyone will be saved (as Piper erroneously claims would follow if Jesus atoned for everyone’s sins). Every individual must receive salvation by believing in the Lord Jesus. When people believe, what Christ accomplished for them becomes effectual in their lives. This is the only conclusion that does justice to Scripture, which both declares that Jesus died for everyone’s sins and affirms that not everyone will be saved.

The Clear Testimony of Scripture: Atonement for the Whole World

Is it true that God extends His saving grace only to a select group of unconditionally elected people? Not according to the apostle John, who taught that Jesus’ atonement was not limited to the saving of some but was accomplished on behalf of every person in the world:

And He Himself [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2, emphasis added).

The word propitiation means “the appeasement of wrath.” John plainly declares that Jesus appeased the wrath of God not only for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world. What could be clearer?

Regarding this verse that so obviously contradicts the Calvinistic idea of limited atonement, Piper attempts to persuade us that John must have meant something other than what he wrote. According to Piper, John meant only that Jesus appeased God’s wrath on behalf of his little group of local Christians and for the rest of the Christians scattered throughout the world (p. 15, para. 7). Thus, in Piper’s view, “the whole world” really means “the children of God scattered throughout the whole world” (p. 16, para. 4).

This is a forced and unnatural interpretation—a clear redefinition of terms. Are we really to believe that the Christians to whom John wrote thought Jesus had not atoned for the sins of all believers around the world, and that John wrote to correct their misunderstanding? Does Piper think his readers are that naïve? And why does Piper refuse to apply the same redefinition when John uses the phrase “whole world” later in the same epistle?

We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one (1 John 5:19, emphasis added; see also 1 John 4:14).

Was John saying that all the other Christians outside his little group were not of God and were lying in the power of Satan? The answer is obvious.

Piper further claims that John could not have meant Jesus appeased God’s wrath for the sins of the entire world, because “propitiated sins cannot be punished. Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved” (p. 16, para. 6).

This reasoning is logical only to the Calvinistic mind, because only Calvinists believe that man plays no part in his salvation. Everyone else recognizes, as Scripture repeatedly teaches, that for any person to experience the benefits of the salvation Christ purchased on the cross, he must repent and believe. Christ’s atonement becomes effectual only when people meet His conditions.

We have already seen that Paul wrote to the Romans that the adoption as sons belonged to the Jews (Romans 9:4). Using Piper’s logic, we would have to conclude that because sonship belongs to every Jew, every Jew will become God’s child. Yet Paul makes it clear that every Jew must believe in Jesus in order actually to possess his rightful adoption as a son. This principle is so abundantly plain in Scripture that we must wonder why Piper even attempts to persuade us otherwise. Only those who have already accepted the Calvinistic doctrines of total depravity and irresistible grace can be convinced by Piper’s conclusion that Christ’s atonement was intended to save only some.

The Testimony of Jesus Himself

Consider the following verses from John’s Gospel, all of which prove that the benefits of Christ’s atonement were not limited to any supposed group of unconditionally elected people but were available to all who would believe. Except for the first quotation (from John the Baptist), the rest come from Jesus’ own lips:

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29, emphasis added).

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him (John 3:16–17, emphasis added).

For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world (John 6:33, emphasis added).

I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh (John 6:51, emphasis added).

I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness. And if anyone hears My sayings, and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world (John 12:46–47, emphasis added).

Jesus could not have made His message clearer: He gave His life for the world. Completely ignoring these passages, however, Piper isolates three texts from the Gospel of John in an attempt to prove that “the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God’s people, not for every individual” (p. 15, para. 2).

Piper’s Selective Use of Scripture

Piper begins with John 10:15, in which Jesus says, “I lay down My life for the sheep.” Piper claims this verse proves that Jesus died only for those God predestined for salvation—the “sheep.” But are we to ignore or nullify the many verses just quoted from John’s Gospel and exalt this single statement? Or is it better to believe everything Jesus said and let Scripture interpret Scripture, arriving at a biblically balanced understanding?

Note that Jesus did not say in John 10:15 that He laid down His life exclusively for His sheep. Had He done so, He would have contradicted Himself in the other passages quoted above. In the text Piper cites, Jesus is simply emphasizing His love for His followers. If Jesus said to you, “I died for you,” would that prove He died for you and no one else? Obviously not.

Why, then, should we conclude, as Piper does (pp. 16–17), that when Scripture sometimes says Jesus gave His life as a ransom for many, or for the church, He died only for the elect and not for everyone? Consider Piper’s logic in the following quotation:

Similarly in Titus 2:14 Paul describes the purpose of Christ’s death like this: [Jesus] gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquities and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds. If Paul were an Arminian would he not have said, He gave himself to redeem all men from iniquity and purify all men for himself? (p. 17, para. 2)

Piper is again forcing his interpretation onto the text. Why could the “us” for whom Jesus gave Himself not simply be those who have repented and believed? Why must the “us” be limited to individuals whom God has pre-selected for salvation?

Once more Piper selects a verse that appears to support his Calvinistic view and ignores all others that would contradict it. Simply because Paul wrote in Titus 2:14 that Jesus gave Himself to “redeem us” rather than to “redeem all,” Piper concludes that Paul was a Calvinist who believed Jesus died only for the predestined. Applying the same flawed logic to Galatians 4:4–5 yields an absurd result:

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons (emphasis added).

Paul says God sent His Son to redeem “those who were under the Law”—that is, all Jews and only Jews. Using Piper’s method of interpreting Titus 2:14, we would have to conclude that Jesus died only for the Jews. And if we adopt Piper’s earlier logic that “propitiated sins cannot be punished” (p. 16, para. 6), we would further conclude that since God sent His Son to redeem those under the Law, all who were under the Law must be redeemed—and therefore all Jews are saved! The glaring errors and inconsistencies of Piper’s interpretive method become plain.

Piper next lifts verses 6, 9, and 19 of John 17 from their context—passages from Jesus’ high- priestly prayer in which He prays that His church might be one so that the world will believe that God sent His Son (John 17:21). By isolating specific requests Jesus made for His followers, Piper tries to prove that Jesus did not die for the very world He prays would believe in Him!

Piper then quotes John 11:51–52, which records Caiaphas’s prophecy that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. Piper is truly searching for needles in a haystack. In the very same sentence that says Jesus should die to gather the children of God scattered abroad (which Piper claims proves Jesus did not die for everyone), we also read that Jesus should die for the nation of Israel. Piper consistently ignores the majority of Scriptures that contradict his doctrine and focuses only on those that seem to support it—even if that means ignoring the first half of a sentence and concentrating solely on the second half.

Scripture’s Overwhelming Witness That Jesus Died for All

Did Jesus die for everyone so that everyone might be saved? What does Scripture say? Consider the following:

All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (Isaiah 53:6, emphasis added).

The same “all” who have gone astray like sheep are the same “all” whose iniquity fell upon Jesus. Calvinists readily endorse the first half of this verse as support for total depravity—“all are totally depraved.” Yet the Lord caused the iniquity of all those same people to fall on Jesus. Why does Piper not conclude from this verse that all will be saved, since the iniquity of all fell upon Jesus and “propitiated sins cannot be punished” (Piper, p. 16, para. 6)?

For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all (Romans 11:32, emphasis added).

The same “all” who are disobedient are the same “all” to whom God is showing saving mercy.

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf (2 Corinthians 5:14–15, emphasis added).

Paul clearly states that Christ died for all; therefore he concludes that “all died.” Notice the flow of his logic. The foundation is the truth that Christ died for all. From this Paul concludes that “all died.” The proof that all had died spiritually is the fact that Christ died for all. There can be no mistaking Paul’s meaning: Christ died for all who were spiritually dead—which is everyone. Paul then declares Christ’s intention in dying for all: that they should repent and no longer live for themselves but for Him. Everyone should do this because Christ died for all, yet not all do.

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time (1 Timothy 2:5–6, emphasis added).

But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9, emphasis added).

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves (2 Peter 2:1, emphasis added).

This last verse proves that Jesus even paid for the sins of false teachers who will be condemned to hell. Jesus died for the sins of all people because God wants all people to be saved.

A Final Clarification and Piper’s Concluding Argument

Piper implies that non-Calvinists believe the cross was intended only to give all men the opportunity to save themselves (p. 17, para. 1). That is a very unfair accusation. No true Arminian believes such nonsense. No person can save himself. We can only respond to the gospel in faith, as God expects us to, using our God-given free wills under the influence of God’s drawing, in order to receive the salvation Christ purchased through His sufferings. That is a far cry from a person “saving himself.”

Piper saves his best argument for last—which is merely a variation of the argument he has used throughout the chapter. He correctly states that Arminians believe (1) Christ died for all the sins of all men, and (2) the reason not all men are saved is that they do not believe. He then asks his clincher question: “But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died?” (p. 18, para. 1). If the Arminian answers yes, then, according to Piper, everyone must be saved, because God would have nothing left to hold against anyone—not even their unbelief.

Certainly unbelief is one of the sins for which Jesus died. Yet what Piper again misses is the obvious biblical fact that what Jesus did for everyone becomes effectual in the lives of individuals only when they believe. This could not be clearer in Scripture.

God provided a way for every Israelite to escape His wrath in Egypt, yet the benefit of that salvation became effectual only for those individual Israelites who believed God and applied the blood of the lamb to their doorposts.

God parted the Red Sea for every Israelite, yet the benefit became effectual only when individual Israelites trusted God and walked across on dry land.

God provided manna for all the Israelites, yet the benefit became effectual only when individual Israelites believed God and gathered what they needed for the day.

Many such biblical examples could be cited, all of which foreshadowed the salvation Christ would make available to all people in the world—a salvation that can be enjoyed by everyone who believes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, God is not a monster who creates people in order to take pleasure in sending them to hell forever. Rather, He is a great Lover who yearns for all to be saved and who suffered horribly on the cross to make salvation possible for all. Praise the Lord! All glory to Him!

May I now ask every reader: Did you begin reading this booklet as a Calvinist? If so, do you still believe the doctrines of Calvinism? If you do, then you must be able to refute every bit of logic and Scripture I have used in this book by showing that what I have written contradicts Scripture and/or logic. After more than three decades since I wrote this booklet, I am still waiting for the very first such refutation from a Calvinist.

If you remain a Calvinist and are unable to refute what I have written, then you remain a Calvinist from some motivation other than obedience to Christ and His Word. Is it pride that prevents you from admitting you have been wrong? Or is it fear of what other Calvinists might think if you defect from their doctrinal system? If either is true, then I must ask an even more searching question: Is Jesus your Lord?

How can it be true both that the elect will certainly be glorified and that the elect may not be glorified? Both cannot be true, yet Piper affirms both within a few sentences. He contradicts himself.

Moreover, logic dictates that if people are saved solely by God’s unconditional election and irresistible grace, there is no sound reason for Scripture to warn anyone to persevere in faith. Those who are genuinely saved will persevere and cannot do otherwise. They need no encouragement, because their salvation has been guaranteed since the foundation of the world.

Likewise, those who are false believers have no reason to be encouraged, because their faith is not genuine. It is certain they will not persevere, for their damnation has been guaranteed since the foundation of the world. To encourage such a person is merely to prolong the deception until he discovers the inevitable: he has been predestined to damnation, and there is no reason for him to attempt to persevere in a faith that is bogus.

That is why it is virtually impossible for a consistent Calvinist to possess any real assurance of his salvation until his final breath. He must always live with the fear that his faith may prove to be bogus if he fails to persevere until death.

Again, if unconditional election is true, conditional glorification cannot be true. If conditional glorification is true (which it is), unconditional election cannot be true. Yet Piper repeatedly maintains that both are true. For example, he writes:

We do not breathe easy after a person has prayed to receive Christ, as though we can be assured from our perspective that they are now beyond the reach of the evil one. There is a fight of faith to be fought. We must endure to the end in faith if we are to be saved (p. 23, para. 4).

Here Piper says that a person who has prayed to receive Christ is not “beyond the reach of the evil one.” But if that person was predestined to be damned, he was never truly saved, and his prayer was ineffectual; he never escaped Satan’s clutches. If, on the other hand, the person was predestined to be saved, then there is no possibility of his forfeiting salvation. And if he, being elect, is not beyond the reach of the evil one (as Piper claims), then Satan is more powerful than God—an outcome that voids God’s sovereignty, something no consistent Calvinist should allow.

A few paragraphs later, Piper reverses his position again:

God’s elect cannot be lost. This is why we believe in eternal security—namely, the eternal security of the elect. The implication is that God will so work that those whom he has chosen for eternal salvation will be enabled by him to persevere in faith to the end… (p. 24, para. 7).

But if this is true, why does Scripture contain so many warnings to believers against falling away from the faith—warnings that Piper himself lists (for example, Mark 13:13; 1 Corinthians 15:1–2; Colossians 1:21–23; 2 Timothy 2:11–12; Revelation 2:7, 10–11, 17, 25–26; 3:5, 11–12, 21)? If true believers cannot fall away, why would Jesus and Paul warn them about something that cannot possibly happen?

The truth is that Scripture repeatedly warns believers against falling away because it is possible for genuine believers to fall away. For the same reason, Scripture repeatedly admonishes believers to continue in the faith. All such passages stand in direct contradiction to the Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.

Piper then quotes Jesus’ words in John 10:26–30 to prove that the elect cannot be lost. This passage is a favorite of nearly everyone who believes in unconditional eternal security, whether Calvinist or not:

But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.

This passage, of course, is not the only relevant text in Scripture. It highlights the faithfulness of Christ, yet it also identifies the characteristics of those to whom Christ is faithful: Jesus’ sheep hear His voice and follow Him. These are the ones who shall never perish or be snatched from His hand. This fits perfectly with the testimony of the rest of Scripture. As long as we continue in faith—evidenced by our following Jesus—we need not fear that we will perish or be snatched from our Father’s hand. If we stop following Jesus, we are no longer His sheep.

This Scripture, like so many others, teaches a conditional eternal security: we must continue to follow Jesus in order to be finally saved. Yet Piper uses it to support an unconditional eternal security, which stands in direct contradiction to his own affirmation of conditional glorification (itself a form of conditional eternal security). In short, Piper affirms both unconditional eternal security (based on unconditional election) and conditional eternal security (based on conditional glorification). He is a very inconsistent Calvinist.

In the same chapter, Piper reverses his position yet again. Writing about believers who fall away, he says:

The fact that such a thing is possible [believers falling away] is precisely why the ministry of the Word in every local church must contain many admonitions to the church members to persevere in faith and not be entangled in those things which could possibly strangle them and result in their condemnation (p. 25, para. 3, emphasis added).

I could not agree more with that statement. But Piper again contradicts himself. After telling us that it is impossible for the elect to be lost, he now insists that we must admonish church members to persevere in faith lest they be condemned.

Do these church members possess genuine faith? If so, then they are among the elect, and it is impossible for them to be ultimately condemned (according to Piper and all other Calvinists). They need no admonishing.

Or is their faith bogus? If so, then they are not currently saved and need no admonishing to continue in a faith that is not genuine. They need to be saved—but according to Calvinism, they will be saved only if they have been unconditionally elected. And if they are not among the elect, then it is impossible for them not to be condemned.

In summary, the Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints is, for the Calvinist, an absolutely necessary doctrine, even though it is unbiblical. If God bestows His irresistible grace upon totally depraved people whom He has unconditionally elected, then it must of necessity be impossible for any of those people to forfeit the salvation God gave them against their totally depraved wills. They are robots from start to finish. It can be no other way within Calvin’s system of theology.

If, however, people possess wills free enough to repent and believe under God’s prevenient grace, and if God has chosen from the foundation of the world to give eternal life to all who will believe, then it stands to reason that regenerate people may fall away from faith by the exercise of their free wills—just as the New Testament repeatedly teaches.

Because conditional glorification is true, unconditional election cannot be true. If there is an election (and there is), it must be conditional. Thus the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election falls together with the Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.

Paul knew God’s Word well enough, however, to know that God did not promise salvation to every physical descendant of Israel, but only to those who believe. Moreover, Paul knew God’s Word well enough to know that God had even foretold through the prophets that very few Jews would believe the gospel, while many Gentiles would embrace it. That is what the ninth chapter of Romans is all about.

True Israelites

Directly after Paul declares that God’s word has not failed, he states, “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” (9:6). He can only mean that just because one is a physical descendant of Jacob/Israel does not mean that he is a true Israelite. No Jew should rely upon his physical lineage for his salvation, any more than he should rely upon his physical circumcision, as Paul had earlier warned (see 2:25–29).

Paul continues by expanding on that idea:

Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “Through Isaac your descendants will be named.” That is it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son” (9:7–9, emphasis added).

Again, the primary point is that physical lineage does not guarantee God’s favor, as proven by the case of Ishmael. Ishmael was a physical descendant of Abraham who did not receive the blessing given to Isaac.

Paul draws a further parallel with this example for his Jewish readers. They may be either like Isaac or like Ishmael in this respect: believing Jews are like Isaac, “children of the promise,” who receive the blessing by faith; unbelieving Jews are like Ishmael, “children of the flesh,” who are only physical descendants.

Obviously, like all comparisons, this one is imperfect, and there are many dissimilarities that could be mentioned between Isaac and believers and between Ishmael and unbelievers. Paul draws out only one similarity. His point is that God has chosen to bless only those who have faith in His promise. No Jew should rely on his physical lineage to obtain God’s blessing. Paul continues:

And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger” (Rom. 9:10–12).

Ignoring eight chapters of context that contradict his claim, Piper says this passage teaches that God unconditionally elects individuals for salvation just as Jacob was unconditionally elected before his birth. But unless Paul was very confused and contradicted what he previously wrote, Piper must be wrong. Paul is simply using another example that proves one’s physical lineage does not guarantee blessing from God. Esau was a physical descendant of Isaac who did not receive the blessing given to Jacob.

Again Paul draws a parallel with this example for his Jewish opponents: God’s choosing of Jacob was obviously not based on his works since he was chosen before he was born. Similarly, God has chosen to show favor to sinful Gentiles apart from works. How could Jewish readers legitimately object to Paul’s doctrine that God had chosen to favor Gentiles apart from their works when God had similarly chosen to favor their revered forefather Jacob/Israel apart from his works?

Paul is not trying to convince his readers that the reason some individuals are saved and some are unsaved is that God has pre-selected only some for salvation. Neither Jacob nor Isaac was pre-selected to be saved, and there is no scriptural evidence that Ishmael or Esau died unsaved. Ishmael and Esau were simply not chosen to be in the messianic lineage. Paul is illustrating that God has the sovereign right to make His choices, and that He can make choices that are not based on people’s works, as He did with Jacob.

Again, like all comparisons, this one is imperfect. We must be cautious not to read more into it than Paul intended, and the context helps us avoid that error. Paul’s example cannot rightfully be interpreted to mean that God chose Jacob for salvation and Esau for damnation, or that God has done anything similar with any individual before or after them. Otherwise we take Paul’s words out of their context and make him contradict himself in his very next sentence, which says, “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!” (9:14). If God chose Jacob for salvation and Esau for damnation before they were born, He is very unjust.

God’s Sovereign, Just Mercy

Paul is masterfully exposing the fallacy of his Jewish opponents’ argument. They claimed it was unjust for God to show saving mercy to the Gentiles that He withheld from His own people. Paul has just proved otherwise from their own history. If they say Paul’s message makes God unjust, then they must also admit that God was unjust in His choices of Isaac and Jacob over Ishmael and Esau.

An unjust God is an impossibility in Paul’s mind, and so it should be in everyone’s mind. Who can accuse God of injustice because He chose Jacob rather than Esau to be in the messianic lineage? God has such a right. Moreover, His choice of those two men had something to do with Him bringing salvation to all.

And who can accuse God of injustice if He chooses to show grace to sinners who become humble believers and chooses to withhold His grace from proud sinners who attempt to earn their salvation? There is no injustice in that. But there is indeed injustice in God if He unconditionally elects some to salvation and some to damnation.

Paul continues:

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 does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires (9:15–18).

God’s mercy and hardening, however, are not arbitrary, but just. If every person received the justice due him, every person would be condemned, because all have sinned—a point Paul had made earlier in this letter. So the only question is, To whom, if anyone, is God showing mercy in salvation? Paul’s answer is that God shows saving mercy to anyone who believes, Jew or Gentile. He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and no one has any right to find fault with Him for showing mercy to believing Gentiles.

Just as God has the right to show mercy to whomever He desires, He also has the right to harden whomever He desires. No one can rightfully find fault with Him for hardening anyone He desires. Thankfully, because God is righteous, He hardens only those who have repeatedly rejected His mercy. Paul points specifically to Pharaoh, to whom God showed incredible mercy over a period of time (and nobody can argue against that). On several occasions Scripture says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and thus God decided to justly harden his heart (see Ex. 7:13, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 12, 34–35; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:8). Who can find fault with God for that?

Likewise, God had shown incredible mercy to the Jews, as Paul would soon say in 10:21, quoting Isaiah 65:2: “All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.” God had the right to harden them now just as He did Pharaoh of old. Paul will soon show that the prophets predicted the Jews’ rejection of Christ and God’s hardening of them because of it (see 9:27–29, 33; 10:19–21; 11:7–10).

The Unjust Mercy of Calvinism

Calvinists misuse Paul’s words in this passage (and Piper is no exception), saying that God has compassion on some and hardens others for no other reason than His good pleasure. That makes God unjust—the very thing Paul is arguing against—and contradicts his summarizing statement to this entire section of Scripture: “For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all” (11:32).

Anticipating another objection, Paul writes, “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’ On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?” (Rom. 9:19–20).

If God actually hardens rebels, then why does He still find fault with them? The answer is that God righteously hardens rebels. He hardens them as a means of judgment upon them. Paul, however, does not mention that at this point, but sharply rebukes anyone who would dare find fault with God for hardening anyone. We are not the judge of God; He is our judge. Anyone who has been hardened by God cannot rightly point a finger of accusation against Him. God has the right to do whatever He desires with us, and thank God that He has shown us all incredible mercy in order that we might repent and be saved.

Paul continues defending God’s right to do what He pleases with what is His:

The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles (9:20–24, emphasis added).

I italicized the last part of 9:24 simply to remind us that Paul is still writing about the Jewish controversy concerning the justice of God in saving believing Gentiles while rejecting unbelieving Jews.

Paul is not, and cannot be, attempting to persuade his readers that God pre-selects some to be “vessels of wrath” and others to be “vessels of mercy,” as that would contradict everything he has said about God’s justice. Rather, Paul is emphasizing that God has been extremely patient with those who were vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (9:22). These “vessels” were not “prepared sovereignly by God,” but simply “prepared,” or “ready,” for destruction because of their own sinfulness. Paul is not saying that only a certain percentage of people are “vessels of wrath.” All people are “vessels of wrath” prior to their repentance and regeneration, as Paul has made abundantly clear in earlier chapters.

Paul explains that the reason God was so patient with vessels that were so worthy of His judgment was so that He might “make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory [‘beforehand’ because He foreknew who would believe; see 8:29], even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles” (9:23–24).

Clearly, in opposition to what some Jews wanted to believe, Paul believed that the vessels of mercy include Gentiles whom God has called through the gospel. That is still the primary point of this chapter. To buttress his point, Paul offers proof that God foretold through His prophets that He would save Gentiles but that only a remnant of Jews would be saved:

As He says also in Hosea, “I will call those who were not My people [Gentiles], ‘My people,’ and her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’ And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ there they shall be called sons of the living God.” Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; for the Lord will execute His word on the earth, thoroughly and quickly.” And just as Isaiah foretold, “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity, we would have become like Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah” (9:25–29).

Finally we arrive at Paul’s summary of this entire ninth chapter. Here it becomes even clearer that he has all along been refuting the Jewish objection to his doctrine that God was accepting believing Gentiles and rejecting unbelieving Jews:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed” (9:30–33).

Paul’s point is so obvious that one wonders how any Calvinist can miss it. Many Gentiles attained righteousness while many Jews did not, because the Jews did not pursue it by faith as the Gentiles did. And God had foretold this would happen through Isaiah, saying that the Messiah would be a stumbling stone to some, but anyone who believes in Him will not be disappointed. Isaiah foretold a salvation that would be available to anyone by faith. Isaiah completely contradicted Calvinism’s unconditional election.

Chapters 10 and 11

Paul devotes two more chapters to the Jewish/Gentile issue, both of which stand in contradiction to Calvinistic doctrine. He begins chapter 10 by stating that his prayer to God is for the salvation of his fellow Jews (10:1). Had Paul been a Calvinist, he would never have prayed such a prayer, knowing that the salvation or damnation of every person was already determined before the foundation of the world. Thus there would be no reason to pray for anyone’s salvation. Any Calvinist who prays for the salvation of other people is inconsistent with his own theology. Even if he prays, “Lord, whenever it pleases You, bestow Your irresistible grace upon those whom You have predestined to be saved,” his prayer accomplishes nothing. God will do what He has predetermined regardless of the request.

In 10:4 Paul again affirms the universal opportunity of salvation: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (emphasis added). He then pulls out an arsenal of Scriptures to seal his case. In so doing he repeatedly declares that salvation is available to all in 10:11–13, quoting the prophets Isaiah and Joel:

For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved” (emphasis added).

The very word “whoever,” which Paul uses twice in this passage, contradicts Calvinistic theology, because it implies that individuals can make a choice. To Calvinists, totally depraved people cannot choose to repent or believe, and only those who are unconditionally elected, irresistibly drawn, and sovereignly regenerated will ever do so. Thus the concept implied by the word “whoever” does not exist in the Calvinist system.

Paul again places the blame on the Jews themselves for not being saved, quoting from the most well-known messianic chapter in the Old Testament, Isaiah 53: “Lord, who has believed our report?” (Isa. 53:1, emphasis added). Had they believed the report of the Messiah in Isaiah’s fifty-third chapter, any of them could have been saved.

Paul then quotes Deuteronomy 32:21, where God said that He would make His people jealous and angry by “a nation without understanding” (10:19). Paul reveals a few verses later that he was following God’s example in this (11:11, 14), attempting to “move to jealousy” some of his fellow countrymen and save some of them. Paul believed that it was possible for him (and for God) to do something that would motivate fellow Jews to believe and be saved. Calvinism’s doctrines of total depravity, irresistible grace, and unconditional election all melt in the light of such truth.

Paul again quotes Isaiah to prove that God planned to save Gentiles (10:20) and had extended His merciful hand to His own disobedient and obstinate people (10:21). Once more the implication is that God wanted Jews to be saved, but they would not repent.

A Gracious Choice of Those Who Made a Choice

Lest anyone think Paul thought that God had completely rejected the Jews, he begins the eleventh chapter by refuting that idea, first pointing to himself as proof that God had not rejected the descendants of Israel. Then he cites an Old Testament example of an ancient Israelite who thought he might be the only true follower of Jehovah remaining on the earth:

God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal” (11:2–4).

Notice that God said He had kept seven thousand men for Himself, but they were men who had made the decision not to bow their knee to Baal. God made a decision based upon their decision, not the other way around. Just like Elijah, who by his own free will had decided to serve God and not Baal, so there were seven thousand others like him.

Paul then makes an application of this story to his contemporary situation: “In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice” (11:5). That is, just as in Elijah’s day, God had graciously chosen to keep for Himself a remnant of Jews. They consist of those who believe. Paul immediately emphasizes this condition of acceptance with God in his very next sentence: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (11:6). His point again is that salvation is available to Gentiles just as much as Jews, because the basis of it is God’s grace.

Paul continues:

What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; just as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day.” And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, and a stumbling block and a retribution to them. Let their eyes be darkened to see not, and bend their backs forever” (11:7–10).

The majority of Israelites had not obtained the salvation they were seeking, with the exception of those who were chosen. Ripped from its context and interpreted with a Calvinistic bias, one could use this Scripture as a proof-text for unconditional election. But when we read it within its greater context without a Calvinistic bias, we easily see that Paul is writing about a conditional election. That is, God has chosen to save those who believe—Jew and Gentile. They are His true chosen people.

Incidentally, note that Paul clearly stated that the Jews had been seeking salvation but had not obtained it, because, as we know, they had been seeking it by works. This, of course, contradicts Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity. The unsaved Jews of whom Paul wrote were not so totally depraved that they could not attempt to obey God and seek salvation.

God’s Hardening of Rebels

Paul writes that those who are not among God’s chosen—that is, those who do not believe—God has hardened. This subject of God’s righteous hardening of rebels has already surfaced in 1:18–32 and 9:15–18. But has God hardened Christ-rejecting Jews to the point that it is now impossible for them to repent and believe? No, indeed, as Paul makes ever so clear in the very next paragraph:

I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? (11:11–15).

Far from stating that God has completely rejected the Jews, Paul declares that by saving Gentiles, God is attempting to move Jews to jealousy so that they might be motivated to receive His salvation. Again, this stands in direct contradiction to Calvinistic theology. If some Jews were predestined to be saved and others to be damned, God would have no reason to try to make Jews jealous by showing grace to Gentiles in hopes that Jews would be saved.

Paul also declares that if the Jewish rejection of Christ has resulted in spiritual riches for the Gentiles, what might happen when the Jews ultimately receive Christ, as the Scripture has foretold they will? Their future acceptance of Him will be “life from the dead” (11:15), probably a reference to the future resurrection and the beginning of Christ’s millennial reign on earth.

Paul develops this theme a little later in the chapter:

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.” “This is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.” From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (11:25–29).

By these words Paul completes his refutation of the Jewish objection that God’s word had failed if his gospel were true (9:6). Paul believed that God’s promise of salvation to the Jews would ultimately be fulfilled when the fullness of the Gentiles had come in (11:25), when the Jews would finally believe in Jesus. For now, however, Paul said that a “partial hardening” had happened to Israel. This was not because God arbitrarily decided to harden certain Israelites simply because of His “good pleasure,” but because He had righteously hardened those who refused to believe in His Messiah. Again, He had not hardened them to the point of making it impossible for them to believe, because He was at the same time attempting to attract them to believe by making them jealous of the Gentiles who believed. If God had determined to harden certain Jews because they were not predestined to be saved, why would He attempt to motivate them to believe by making them jealous of Gentiles?

Moreover, why would God attempt to make anyone believe (in this case, by trying to make Jews jealous of Gentiles)? If people are saved only when God bestows a grace that is irresistible upon those pre-ordained to be saved, then God would make no such attempts that leave room for possible failure and that are inconsistent with His sole means of saving people. Making certain people jealous in order to motivate them to believe in Jesus is contradictory to the Calvinistic ideas of total depravity, irresistible grace, and unconditional election.

The Olive Tree Example

Further contradiction of Calvinistic doctrine is found in chapter 11. Drawing an analogy of a tree and its branches with God’s family tree of salvation, Paul writes:

But if some of the [Jewish] branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive [a Gentile], were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? (11:17–24, emphasis added).

Where are any Calvinistic doctrines found in this passage? Just the opposite!

Again we see that Paul believed God would graft individual Jews into the salvation tree if they would believe. It was up to them, not God. Had Paul been a Calvinist, he could not have written what he did. He could only have said that God will graft them in again if God wills for them to be grafted in and gives them the gift of faith.

Note also that Paul warned that genuinely saved Gentiles could forfeit their salvation if they stopped believing. Naturally, such a thing would not be possible if unconditional election were true. If God unconditionally elected a person to be saved, then once God’s irresistible grace had been bestowed upon that person, he would be permanently saved with no chance of forfeiting his salvation. One who is “grafted in” cannot be “cut off” in the Calvinistic system, yet Paul believed one “grafted in” could be “cut off.” Furthermore, according to Calvinism, one who was “grafted in” and then “cut off” could never have been “grafted in” in the first place. Paul believed otherwise.

In conclusion, if Paul was affirming the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election in Romans 9, then he was an idiot, because he contradicted his own doctrine repeatedly throughout the book of Romans, and we should thus toss his writings out with the rubbish.

Ephesians 1:3–6

The only other Scripture Piper uses to defend the idea of unconditional election is Ephesians 1:3–6, a passage that, like many others, refers to believers as being chosen before the foundation of the world. Calvinists often use such verses to prove their idea of unconditional election, but they fail to notice that Paul never says anything about God’s choice being unconditional. And they ignore the multitude of Scriptures that unequivocally say that God’s choice of people is conditional.

For example, Paul later writes in Ephesians that “by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works” (Eph. 2:8–9, emphasis added). The salvation God has so graciously offered to us is conditioned upon our faith, and not our works. What could be more obvious? In order to be chosen by God and saved, we must have faith. Because God foreknows what every person will do, He knows who will have faith and who will not. So those who have faith are chosen before the foundation of the world.

Thus we see how unscriptural the idea of an unconditional election is. Any person who takes the whole of Scripture into consideration will not conclude that God pre-selects some individuals for salvation and others for damnation. Only those who ignore the majority of what Scripture teaches and focus on certain out-of-context Calvinistic “proof texts” could arrive at such a conclusion.

The book of Romans stands out in the New Testament as the most lengthy and detailed defense of the gospel. In it, Paul defends his divinely given message that salvation was being withheld from unbelieving Jews and freely granted to believing Gentiles. Many Jews hated Paul’s teaching, and throughout his letter he addresses their various objections. This is obvious even to the casual reader.

Two Pillars of the Gospel

After his introduction, Paul continues in chapter 1 by focusing on two foundational pillars upon which his gospel is built: humanity’s sinfulness and God’s wrath. Here, right from the start, we begin to see contradictions to the Calvinistic interpretation of certain verses in Romans 9.

Paul first describes how God’s wrath is revealed in His judgment upon sinners who are without excuse before God (1:18–23). In fact, Paul plainly declares that people’s ever-increasing depravity and slavery to sin are an indication of God’s judgment upon them. In the space of just a few sentences he mentions three times how God “gives them over” to impurity, degrading passions, and a depraved mind (1:24, 26, 28). There is no mistaking Paul’s point: God judges sinners by giving them over to ever-increasing depravity.

In this way God can be said to be righteously hardening sinners. I suspect Paul had more in mind than merely illuminating one aspect of God’s wrath. If he can secure his Jewish readers’ early acceptance of the fact that God righteously hardens Gentile rebels, they will more readily accept his later teaching that God also righteously hardens Jews who reject His Messiah.

This Contradicts Calvinism

Note that Paul’s declarations regarding human corruption stand in contradiction to the Calvinistic ideas of total depravity and irresistible grace. God gives people over to depravity only after they have first, by their own choice, decided to resist Him and continually yield to sin. Before He gives them over, they suppressed the truth (1:18), they did not honor God or give thanks (1:21), they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures (1:22–23), they exchanged the truth of God for a lie (1:25), and they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer (1:28). “Therefore God gave them over to impurity,” to “degrading passions,” and to a “depraved mind” (1:24, 26, 28). Those depraved people practice the many vices Paul lists in 1:29–32.

So, although all people are born with a propensity to sin inherited from Adam, they are not born “depraved” in the Calvinistic sense. God judges those who persist on the path of sin by “giving them over” to degrees of depravity. Yet even such depraved sinners are not so depraved that they cannot repent with God’s gracious help while He extends His kindness during their lifetimes (2:4). Clearly Paul was contradicting the Calvinistic concept of total depravity and, consequently, the Calvinistic concept of irresistible grace.

Chapter 2

Through the end of chapter 1, Jewish readers of Paul’s letter may have been saying “Amen.” Surely, they likely thought, Paul was writing only about the depraved Gentiles. But the tables begin to turn on self-righteous Jews in chapter 2. There Paul unmasks the hypocrite who passes judgment on others who sin. Any person who condemns another for wrongdoing testifies before heaven’s court that he knows there is such a thing as right and wrong. Thus, when he himself does wrong, he stands self-condemned, without excuse before God. Paul points out that people are guilty of condemning others for sins that they themselves practice (2:1). What person, for example, who condemns another for lying has never lied himself?

Paul goes on to say that everyone knows God’s judgment rightly falls upon such people (2:2). That is, we all know that such people deserve to be punished, and they would be very foolish to think they will escape God’s punishment when they practice the very sins they condemn in others. The only thing that keeps them from immediate punishment is God’s merciful kindness, which He shows them in the hope that it will lead them to repent (2:4). If they do not repent, however, they will inevitably face God’s wrath, which they have been storing up for themselves while they enjoyed God’s kindness all their lives (2:5).

Again, Paul’s words contradict the Calvinistic ideas of total depravity, irresistible grace, and unconditional election. Paul believed that God is patient with corrupt people who are able to repent and whom He wants to repent, yet who may never repent and will ultimately receive the full measure of His wrath. Therefore no one is so totally depraved that he cannot repent, and thus irresistible grace is unnecessary. Moreover, the saved are not those unconditionally elected, but those who by their own choice repent while God is showing them mercy.

Paul continues by stating that because God is perfectly fair, He will one day render to every person according to his deeds (2:6)—a point no Jew could debate, because Paul was quoting Scripture. God will give eternal life, glory, honor, and peace to everyone who perseveres in doing good and who seeks glory and honor from God. Those who do evil, who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, however, will face His wrath, indignation, and distress (2:7–10).

Most Jews who opposed Paul’s gospel believed eternal life was merited by keeping the Mosaic Law. But no Jewish reader could at this point rightly accuse him of eliminating the necessity of holiness for eternal life. Paul’s message was different, however, because he believed that no one who is a slave to sin can keep the Law. One who believes in the Lord Jesus is supernaturally set free from sin and can keep God’s commandments by the power of the indwelling Spirit. Thus the Law is not nullified by faith, as some of Paul’s opponents might argue. Rather, as Paul later declares, “through faith” the Law is established (Rom. 3:31).

The destinies of eternal life for the righteous and eternal death for sinners apply to Jews as well as Gentiles (2:9–10). The reason, Paul says, is that “there is no partiality with God” (2:11). He is perfectly fair. Clearly this point also stands in direct contradiction to the Calvinistic idea of unconditional election, which voids God’s impartiality. The God of Calvinism has favorites—those whom He elects for salvation before the foundation of the world.

Paul expands the concept of God’s impartiality toward Jews and Gentiles in 2:12–16. God gave the Law only to the Jews, so He will judge them by the standard of the Law. Paul adds what no Jew can argue against: merely hearing the Law does not make one righteous in God’s sight; it is the doers of the Law who will be justified.

Likewise, God did not give the Law of Moses to the Gentiles, so He will not judge them by that standard. God did, however, give them all consciences that condemn them when they do what is wrong and commend them when they do what is right. They will be held accountable to the law written in their hearts.

Paul next challenges his Jewish opponents to apply logically to themselves what he has just said. He exposes the Jew who knows God’s Law, boasts in it, and teaches it to others, yet transgresses it himself, and he compares that Jew to an uncircumcised Gentile who instinctively keeps the Law by following his divinely given conscience. Such upright Gentiles can rightfully condemn such hypocritical Jews.

By this example Paul exposes the absurdity of the common Jewish belief that circumcision somehow made them right before God. He even goes so far as to say that in such a case God would consider the hypocritical Jew uncircumcised and the upright Gentile circumcised. The reason is that true circumcision is of the heart. Paul writes: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God” (2:28–29). A true Jew has had his heart changed by the Spirit and pleases God by heart obedience.

Within the second chapter of Romans, Paul sets up his Jewish opponents so that they will be unable to argue logically against his doctrine that God is freely granting salvation to believing Gentiles while rejecting unbelieving Jews. If Jews can be justified by obeying the Law God gave them, then certainly Gentiles can be justified by obeying the consciences God gave them. If not, God would be unfair—and this the Jews had to acknowledge. They are now prepared for the next point of Paul’s argument.

As Paul will next explain in chapter 3, Jews and Gentiles are both “under sin” (3:9); both stand equally condemned before God; and thus neither can obtain salvation by merit. Therefore, if either is to be saved, it must be by another way; and if God offers that way to Jews, He must in fairness also offer it to Gentiles. That way of salvation is, of course, the way of faith. Thus God can righteously reject unbelieving Jews and righteously accept believing Gentiles, just as He can righteously reject unbelieving Gentiles and righteously accept believing Jews. If this is not true, then God is partial, which stands against what Scripture teaches.

From reading the first two chapters of Romans, one would assume Paul was an Arminian who believed that anyone—Jew or Gentile—could be saved by faith. He continually contradicts Calvinistic theology.

Chapter 3

From the start of chapter 3 Paul anticipates an inevitable Jewish objection to what he has just written regarding uncircumcised Gentiles being accepted by God while circumcised Jews are rejected by Him: “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?” (Rom. 3:1).

Paul responds that Jews are advantaged because they were entrusted with the “oracles of God” (3:2)—that is, they were given God’s Word in what we call the Old Testament. Yet some of the Jews to whom God’s oracles were given did not believe what God said (for example, those who failed to enter the Promised Land). Paul therefore asks, “What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?” (3:3). He answers emphatically, “May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

Here Paul begins to respond to a Jewish objection that he later expands in chapter 9. His Jewish opponents apparently argued that if his gospel were true, then God’s word had failed (9:6), because by Paul’s criteria most of the Jews had failed to obtain the salvation God promised them. Here Paul reminds Jewish readers that it is not God’s fault that some Jews did not or do not believe. Neither does their unbelief nullify God’s faithfulness to His promises.

Because all people—Jew and Gentile—stand condemned for their sin and fall short of God’s glory, Paul says that “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight” (3:20). The Law does not save anyone; it only brings “the knowledge of sin” (3:20) and reveals God’s righteousness (3:21). God has, however, provided a salvation that is granted by His grace to all sinners, Jew and Gentile, if they will believe in Jesus (3:22–24). Again, Paul certainly does not sound like a Calvinist.

Another primary Jewish objection to Paul’s gospel was that it made God look unfair or unrighteous, in that He was accepting wicked, sinful Gentiles while rejecting “law-abiding” Jews. But in light of the fact that Jews stood just as condemned before God as Gentiles, Paul’s gospel did not make God unrighteous in the least. On the contrary, it made God look perfectly righteous in several ways.

First, because God showed “no distinction” (3:22) between Jews and Gentiles. Since all Jews and Gentiles had sinned and stood equally condemned, God made atonement for all their sins and offered them all, by His grace, the gift of salvation, conditioned on each person’s faith. What could be more fair or righteous toward Jews and Gentiles? (And what could be more contrary to Calvinism?)

Second, Paul’s gospel vindicated God before those who accused Him of being unrighteous when He showed “forbearance” and “passed over the sins previously committed” (3:25)—that is, when God did not immediately punish people’s sins in the past. Paul’s gospel revealed that as Christ hung on the cross, He died for all sins for all time as a “propitiation” (3:25)—a sacrifice that appeased God’s wrath against sin. Thus all sin was atoned for by Christ, and His sacrifice made it possible for God to show forbearance to sinners without compromising His own righteousness. Apart from Jesus’ substitutionary death, God could rightly have been accused of unrighteousness when He showed forbearance to those who committed sin. Christ’s death is the basis for all the mercy He has ever shown.

Third, Paul’s gospel revealed God’s righteousness in that when it was believed by Jews and Gentiles, they were made righteous both legally and practically.

Paul’s gospel revealed God’s righteousness in all these ways, and thus the Jewish objection that his message made God unrighteous was completely unfounded.

Again, it is obvious that what Paul has written in the third chapter stands in opposition to Calvinistic doctrine. Calvinism does not uphold God’s righteousness, for it makes God partial to certain people and therefore unjust. Paul’s gospel made salvation equally accessible to Jews and Gentiles. There is no hint of unconditional election in this third chapter.

Paul asks a final question at the end of chapter 3—an objection he either anticipates or has heard: “Do we then nullify the Law through faith?” He answers, “May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law” (3:31). That could be paraphrased: “In light of what I have just written, does my gospel of salvation by faith nullify the Law, making the words of God Himself meaningless, as some accuse? That, you now realize, is an absurd accusation. My gospel does not nullify the Law; it establishes the Law, because it harmonizes perfectly with, supports, and upholds the Law. It reveals God’s righteousness even better than the Law does. It puts the Law in its proper and intended place. It is the fulfillment of many promises, types, and shadows found in the Law that pointed to Jesus. It results in people becoming obedient to God’s Law. How could any intelligent person say that my gospel nullifies the Law?”

Chapter 4

Quoting Genesis 15:6, Paul proves that Abraham, the revered ancestor of all Jews, was justified by faith and not by works (4:1–3). This is a strong argument in Paul’s favor, placing Abraham on his side. Additionally, Paul points out that Abraham was justified before he received the rite of circumcision (4:10–11)—something the Jews considered essential for salvation, if not the very guarantee of it.

Because Abraham was declared righteous before he received circumcision, this proves that non-circumcised Gentiles can be justified before God without being circumcised. Thus “Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised” (4:11). In this way Abraham becomes a father even to those who are not of his physical lineage but who follow his faith. This was even foretold in Scripture when God promised to make him “a father of many nations” (4:17).

Perhaps anticipating that some Jews might retort that Abraham was not required to keep the Law for salvation since he lived before God gave the Law of Moses, Paul also cites words of David, a man who lived under the Mosaic Law. David’s words also prove that, even under the Mosaic Law, justification was by faith and not works, for he wrote of the blessed man “whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered; blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account” (4:7–8).

Going a step further, Paul declares that God’s promised blessing to Abraham and his descendants was conditioned on faith and not on the Law. Therefore those who try to inherit that blessing by keeping the Law nullify God’s promise to Abraham and his posterity (4:13–14). Paul argued this same point in Galatians 3:17: “The Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later [after God’s promise to Abraham and his seed], does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.”

So we see that Paul continues addressing Jewish objections to his gospel. And by the end of chapter 4 there is not a hint of Calvinism—rather, just the opposite.

Chapter 5

In the second half of chapter 5 Paul answers yet another objection. Some might say, “How is it possible for one man’s act to make salvation possible for all people?” Paul responds by relating how one man’s act brought death to the entire world, and then compares the negative results of Adam’s sin with the positive results of Jesus’ death (5:12–21).

Within his comparison Paul writes, “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (5:18, emphasis added). From everything else Paul wrote, we can safely assume he was not asserting that all people will be justified, but that all people can be justified through Jesus’ act of righteousness.

In any case, note that there is no difference between the “all men” who are condemned by Adam’s sin and the “all men” who can be justified by Jesus’ obedience. That, of course, flatly contradicts the Calvinistic idea of unconditional election, as well as the Calvinist idea that Jesus died only for the sins of those predestined to be saved (what Calvinists call “limited atonement”).

Chapters 6–8

Some of Paul’s opponents apparently argued that if his doctrine of salvation by grace were true, then it follows that we should continue to sin so that God can show us more grace. Similarly, some argued that if we are not under law (as a means of earning our salvation), then we have no motivation not to sin.

Paul annuls these objections by revealing that those who have truly received God’s grace—that is, true believers—have become obedient from the heart (6:17) and have been united with Christ in His death and resurrection (6:2–7). They have thus died to sin, are freed from it, and it no longer has dominion over them (6:2, 7, 14). Believers are released from the Law’s condemnation by Christ’s death (7:1–6). Now “we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter” (7:6).

This naturally leads Paul, in the second half of chapter 7, to discuss the plight of the Jew who desires to keep the Law but is still bound by sin (7:14–25). A “wretched man” (7:24) is he indeed—one with whom every Jew who was genuinely attempting to keep the Law could identify. The only one who can set him free from his bondage is Jesus (7:24–25).

In chapter 8 Paul continues this theme, highlighting the great advantage gained by those who have been regenerated and are now “in the Spirit,” no longer “in the flesh” (8:9). Such people have an obligation to follow the indwelling Spirit, and they are God’s own children and heirs (8:12–17). They should patiently wait, even if suffering for their faith, for the time when God’s plan of salvation will be completely fulfilled, when all of the physical creation, including their own bodies, will be transformed for God’s glory (see 8:18–25).

Paul then declares:

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified (8:28–30).

This passage Piper highlights in his chapter on unconditional election (pp. 21–22), saying it is perhaps the most important text of all in relation to the teaching of unconditional election (p. 21, para. 3). He then attempts to show that this passage does not mean what it actually says. He must, because it contradicts Calvinistic theology.

Piper’s Circular Reasoning

Anyone who reads this passage without a Calvinistic bias would conclude that God causes all things to work together for good for those who love Him—that is, for believers. This is demonstrated by the fact that those whom God foreknows (obviously speaking of believers), He predestines to become conformed to the image of Jesus, calls them through the gospel, justifies them, and ultimately glorifies them.

Piper attempts to prove that when Paul used the word “foreknew” with regard to the believers, the actual meaning of the word in this context is “foreordained.” The flaw in his logic is so glaring that it is almost embarrassing to expose it. But expose it I must.

Piper ignores the fact that Paul was writing from the beginning of verses 28 and 29 exclusively about people who are saved. Paul defines them as those who “love God,” who are “called according to His purpose,” and whom God “foreknew.” He was clearly not writing about all people, but only about those who are Christians.

Piper points out that Paul says in verse 30 that those whom God calls He justifies. Piper then says that this calling which Paul mentions is not the general call to repentance given to all people, because Paul says it always results in justification. Since not everyone who hears the general call ends up justified, the call of which Paul speaks here must be, according to Piper, the Calvinistic call of “irresistible grace”—the call given only to those unconditionally elected for salvation. Piper ignores the fact that God’s general call of salvation always results in the justification of those whom God foreknew would believe, who are, of course, the only people about whom Paul was writing.

Based on his premise that Paul was writing about people who are called by God’s irresistible grace, Piper then goes back to the beginning of verse 29 and redefines what Paul must have meant when he wrote about those whom God foreknew. Since Paul was (in Piper’s view) obviously writing only about those who are unconditionally elected and irresistibly drawn, when he used the word “foreknew” in verse 29 it must be equivalent to “foreordained.”

Again, the truth of the matter is that the call of the gospel always results in the justification of those whom God foreknew would believe—the only ones Paul was speaking of in this passage from the beginning. It is just that simple.

Foreknowledge and foreordination are not the same thing. I might foreknow that it is going to rain, but that does not prove I foreordained that it would rain. God foreknows who will be saved because He foreknows who will believe. How full is the Bible of events that God foreknew and foretold by prophecy but did not foreordain? How can foreknowledge ever be said to be equivalent to foreordination?

Also note that Paul says nothing in the above passage about God predestining anyone to salvation, but only about Him predestining those whom He foreknew to be conformed to Christ’s image. In that sense God predestines Christians. Foreknowing believers, He predestines them to become like Christ.

Incidentally, God calls people through the gospel, not by irresistible grace. Paul told the Thessalonian believers, “It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 2:14, emphasis added). When Paul preached the gospel in Thessalonica, did he preach only to people who were pre-selected to be saved? No—many who heard the gospel in Thessalonica rejected it (see Acts 17:1–12). Everyone in Thessalonica was called by God through the gospel. So when Paul wrote that the Thessalonians were called through his gospel, he certainly did not think that all the Thessalonians who were called were automatically justified.

Interestingly, one sentence before Paul wrote that God called the Thessalonians through the gospel, he wrote, “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13, emphasis added). Paul could say that God had chosen the Thessalonians to whom he was writing because God has chosen from the beginning to save all who would have “faith in the truth” under the drawing of God’s Spirit. Indeed, as Jesus said, “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14). All those who believe are among God’s chosen.

Now, having considered chapters 1-8 of Romans, we are ready to read chapter 9 within its context. That’s what we’ll do in our next chapter.

Every election known to human experience has been conditional. We elect (or choose) a spouse based on criteria we have established. We elect politicians based on their records and promises. We choose jobs based on the benefits they offer. Outside of Calvinistic theology, the word election always refers to a conditional choice. Who has ever heard of an “unconditional election” in any other context?

Calvinists sometimes reply that a lottery could be considered an unconditional election. But no one calls a lottery an “election.” Lottery winners are called lucky winners, not the elect. For that reason, the phrase “unconditional election” can reasonably be viewed as an oxymoron.

Non-Calvinists believe that before the foundation of the world, God elected to save those who would believe. Those who believe constitute the group the New Testament epistles call the elect or chosen of God. Because God is all-knowing, He foreknew those who would believe. As Peter writes, we have been “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God” (1 Peter 1:1-2). This view alone is consistent with the whole of Scripture, as we will see.

The Calvinist who holds to total depravity and irresistible grace has little choice but to affirm unconditional election. That is why defenders such as John Piper typically begin by citing those two doctrines when they turn to election (see Piper, p. 19). If man is totally depraved and unable to repent, and if salvation is entirely God’s work with no human participation, then those who are saved must be saved solely because God chose them. There is no need to answer this initial argument at length, however, because we have already shown that its two foundational premises are unbiblical. God does not save people by irresistible grace, and no saved person was ever totally depraved according to the Calvinistic definition.

Election and Reprobation

The idea that God predestines some to salvation necessarily implies that He also predestines others to eternal damnation—what is called reprobation. Calvin wrote in his Institutes:

All men are not created for the same end; but some are fore-ordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. So according as every man was created for the one end or the other, we say, he was elected, that is, predestined to life, or reprobated, that is, predestined to damnation (Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 1).

Some Calvinists affirm election while denying reprobation, but it is logically impossible to hold one without the other. Those not chosen for salvation are, by that very fact, chosen for damnation. Calvin himself insisted on this:

Many indeed (thinking to excuse God) own election, and yet deny reprobation; but this is quite silly and childish. For without reprobation, election itself cannot stand; whom God passes by, those he reprobates. It is one and the same thing (Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 1).

Calvin’s logic is unassailable: “Without reprobation, election itself cannot stand.” Although many Calvinists may hesitate to say it openly, their system requires that God wills certain people to go to hell; otherwise He would have predestined them to heaven and given them irresistible grace.

This is what makes the doctrine of unconditional election so repugnant to those who love God: it portrays Him as a being who creates people for the express purpose of sending them to hell. From before their birth they were doomed, with no possibility of escape. It would have been better if such people had never been born. Yet some Calvinists claim this arrangement glorifies God.

Dear Calvinist, what would you say if you learned that people were whispering about you and your new spouse, “I hear they plan to have six children—five of whom they intend to torture cruelly all their lives, and one of whom they plan to treat kindly”? Would you not be deeply offended that anyone would even entertain such a rumor? Yet that is essentially what the doctrine of Unconditional Election attributes to God.

Conflict with God’s Desire That All Be Saved

How can unconditional election (and its necessary counterpart, unconditional damnation) be reconciled with the many Scriptures that clearly state God desires all to be saved? Here is a small sampling:

Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast (Matthew 22:9; emphasis added).

And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation” (Mark 16:15; emphasis added).

I say these things so that you [those who persecuted Him and sought to kill Him; see John 5:16-18] may be saved (John 5:34; emphasis added). [Why were they not saved? Jesus explains:] And you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life (John 5:40; emphasis added).

And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us (Acts 17:26-27; emphasis added).

Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent (Acts 17:30; emphasis added).

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time (1 Timothy 2:3-6; emphasis added).

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9; emphasis added).

We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14; emphasis added).

Anyone who takes these passages at face value must abandon the idea of unconditional election and damnation.

Conflict with God’s Universal Invitations

How can unconditional election be reconciled with God’s many universal invitations to salvation? How could He be anything less than a cruel deceiver if He invites people to receive a gift while having sovereignly decreed that they will never receive it?

What would we think of a man who holds a rope thirty feet above someone trapped at the bottom of a well and pleads with him to take hold of it so he can be pulled out—while knowing the rope is far too short? We would regard the rope-holder to be either deranged or sadistic.

Consider the following words from the lips of God’s Son. If God has unconditionally elected some to salvation and the rest to damnation, could Christ have been sincere when He said:

Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest (Matthew 11:28; emphasis added).

And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me” (Luke 9:23; emphasis added).

For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it (Matthew 16:25; emphasis added).

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. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him (John 3:16-17; emphasis added).

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world (John 12:47; emphasis added).

If God has unalterably decreed some to salvation and the rest to damnation, then all the above statements are misleading and Christ is a deceiver.

Moreover, why does God plead with people to repent if, by His own sovereign decree, they are incapable of doing so? Consider this small sampling and ask how they can be reconciled with unconditional election without making God insincere at best and a cruel deceiver at worst:

Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever! (Deuteronomy 5:29).

But My people did not listen to My voice, and Israel did not obey Me. So I gave them over to the stubbornness of their heart, to walk in their own devices. Oh that My people would listen to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways! I would quickly subdue their enemies and turn My hand against their adversaries (Psalm 81:11-14).

Say to them, “As I live!” declares the Lord God, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezekiel 33:11).

Hundreds of similar passages could be cited. Why would God lament that His people would not change their hearts and plead with them to do so if they were unable to do so by His own decree?

Conflict with Christ’s Universal Atonement

How can unconditional election and damnation be reconciled with the many Scriptures that declare Jesus came to save all by dying for all, atoning for everyone’s sins—including those who ultimately perish?

All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (Isaiah 53:6; emphasis added).

For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost (Matthew 18:11; emphasis added).

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29; emphasis added).

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him (John 3:17; emphasis added).

I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world (John 12:47; emphasis added).

For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all (Romans 11:32; emphasis added).

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf (2 Corinthians 5:14-15; emphasis added).

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time (1 Timothy 2:5-6; emphasis added).

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men (Titus 2:11; emphasis added).

But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9; emphasis added).

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves (2 Peter 2:1; emphasis added).

and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2; emphasis added).

In the last two passages we see plainly that Jesus paid for the sins of those who are not saved, including even false teachers.

Conflict with God’s Justice

How can unconditional election and damnation be reconciled with God’s perfect justice? “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” (Genesis 18:25).

How will God judge the world in righteousness if this doctrine is true? When He says to the goats on His left, “Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink…” might they not rightly reply, “But we could not help but sin, because You created us totally depraved, and because we were not among the elect You never bestowed on us Your irresistible grace! We never had a chance to be saved, for You predestined our damnation before we were born! How can You righteously condemn us?”

Will God condemn people for what it was impossible for them not to do? Will He punish them everlastingly for failing to escape what they could not escape? He might as justly punish people for the beating of their own hearts. In this way Calvinists nullify God’s justice by elevating His sovereignty beyond what Scripture teaches.

Conflict with God’s Love

How can unconditional election and damnation be reconciled with the many Scriptures that speak of God’s love? We are told that “God is love” (1 John 4:8) and that He “is kind to ungrateful and evil men” (Luke 6:35). “The Lord is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works” (Psalm 145:9). How can it be said that God is good to those whom He creates and predestines to damnation?

Calvinists often speak of a “common grace” enjoyed by all, distinguishing it from “saving grace” extended only to the elect. In common grace, they say, everyone experiences God’s goodness and love—even those predestined to damnation—because they enjoy food, covering, pleasures, and other temporal blessings while on earth.

I would argue, however, that such “common grace” cannot rightly be considered an expression of God’s love toward one predestined to be damned. In light of the hell he must suffer, it would have been better for him never to have been born. At the price he must pay, every temporal “blessing” is really a curse. During his life he is only being fattened for the slaughter that awaits him; it would have been better had he been born an animal destined for the butcher’s knife. Perhaps the “kindest” thing God did for him was to hide his unalterable destiny. This kind of “love” is enough to make one’s blood run cold.

Piper’s Explanation

In his treatment of unconditional election, Piper ignores this vast body of scriptural evidence that contradicts the doctrine and once again searches for isolated texts that seem to support it. He finds one in Acts 13:48:

When the Gentiles [in Pisidian Antioch] heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

This verse does not appear in the context of any systematic explanation of predestination. If one concludes from this single statement that God unconditionally appoints certain people to eternal life (and therefore others to eternal damnation), one must elevate the verse so highly that it nullifies hundreds of other passages that stand against it. We should instead adopt an interpretation that harmonizes with the rest of Scripture.

As already shown, before time began God chose to give eternal life to all who would believe. It was a conditional election. They were appointed to eternal life because of God’s foreknowledge of their faith. Luke’s phrase “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” does not prove that a prior unconditional election caused the faith of those Gentiles. They could just as well have been appointed to eternal life on the basis of a conditional election.

Piper’s error is to take a descriptive biblical phrase and force it to prove a particular cause of salvation, thereby reaching a conclusion that contradicts what Scripture plainly teaches is the actual cause of salvation.

Beyond that, because Jesus died for every Gentile and wants every Gentile to be saved, it can rightly be said that God has appointed every Gentile to eternal life in the sense of offering it to them. Luke may simply have been reporting that all the Gentiles who gathered to hear Paul believed the gospel.

Another Isolated Text

As Piper continues searching for supporting texts, he again assigns to a single verse an interpretation that fits his system. John 10:26 says, “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.” Piper notes that Jesus did not say, “You are not My sheep because you do not believe,” but rather the reverse. Therefore, he concludes, these people failed to believe because God had not first chosen them to be among His sheep. “Being a sheep is something that God decides for us before we believe,” Piper writes.

First, note that Jesus didn’t say, “You do not believe because God didn’t predestine you to be saved.” Piper forces meaning into “you are not my sheep” that isn’t there.

Piper also attempts to extract a precise order in the process of salvation from a verse that is simply descriptive. If I say to a stranger, “You do not believe I am David Servant because you are not my friend,” I am only saying that my friends believe I am David Servant, and the fact that you don’t believe I am David Servant indicates that you are not one of my friends.

Consider what happens if we apply Piper’s method to Jesus’ words about a newly converted woman in Luke 7:47: “For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much.”

Was Jesus teaching that the prostitute’s many sins were forgiven because she first, prior to forgiveness, “loved much”? Or was He simply describing people who have been forgiven much as those who love God much? The remainder of the verse makes the answer clear: “but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” Her love was the result of her forgiveness, not its cause.

We should therefore be extremely cautious about deriving an order of salvation from John 10:26, forcing a cause-and-effect relationship onto a statement that was intended only to describe true believers.

Why does Piper not quote the two verses that immediately follow? Jesus continues:

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand (John 10:27-28).

Notice that Jesus mentions both what His sheep do and what He does for them. They believe, they hear His voice (because they are near and attentive), and they follow Him (because they have submitted to Him). True Christians believe in, listen to, and obey Jesus. Like any good shepherd, Jesus knows which sheep are His. He gives them eternal life, promises they will not perish, and guarantees they will not be stolen. This is a two-sided relationship in which both parties have responsibilities.

Of course, Calvinists rely heavily on Romans 9 to defend unconditional election. We will examine that chapter thoroughly in our next chapter.

Such logic is fatally flawed, because it forces more meaning into the expression “dead in your trespasses and sins” than the apostle Paul intended. Using the same logic, we could conclude that those who are dead in their sins cannot think, breathe, speak, or hope, since dead people cannot do those things either. Like all metaphors, there are similarities between physical and spiritual death, but there is also a point at which the similarities end and the dissimilarities begin.

Paul’s phrase “dead in your trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) expresses the fact that unregenerate people have no relationship with God because of their sins and are void of spiritual life in Christ as well as eternal life. It does not express the idea that man is incapable of making a choice to repent, just as it does not imply man’s inability to make any other choice, including moral choices.

Unregenerate people have the capacity to choose between doing what God commands and not doing what God commands (regardless of their motives). This is obvious because unregenerate people make choices all the time to obey or disobey their God-given consciences (see Romans 2:14-15). They are not so evil that they are incapable of choosing to obey, for example, one of God’s commandments. Sometimes unregenerate people even stop practicing certain sins while continuing in others—such as when an adulterer ends an affair because of overwhelming guilt, or when a thief stops stealing for fear of being caught. So what is the difference between any other moral choice an unregenerate person makes and the moral choice to repent and follow Jesus?

It is clear from many Scriptures that Paul did not believe people who are dead in their trespasses and sins are incapable of submitting to God. From the time of Paul’s conversion, Jesus made it plain to him that unregenerate people have both the capacity and the responsibility to turn from their sins. In Acts 26:16-20, Paul recounts before King Agrippa his conversion and calling. Jesus said to him:

But arise and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; delivering you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me (Acts 26:16-18, emphasis added).

Paul continued:

So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:19-20, emphasis added).

Are non-Calvinists saying that a sinful person can repent and believe apart from God’s gracious assistance? Anyone who claims this is in error. God graciously seeks the attention of the unregenerate person, speaking through His creation (Romans 1:18-20), His providence (Acts 14:17), and each person’s conscience (Romans 2:14-16). By His Spirit and by His grace, God calls and anoints messengers who take the message of His saving grace to the sinner.

By His Spirit and grace, God warns and convicts every sinner of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). All of this God does by His grace so that the sinner might be saved—and He does it all before the sinner has taken a single step toward repentance. Without God’s prevenient grace, no person would ever repent. Jesus declared that He is “draw[ing] all men to [Himself]” (John 12:32) since He has been lifted up from the earth. He also declared, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44a). The Calvinist, ignoring the testimony of much of Scripture that declares God’s universal love, His universal atonement, and His universal call to salvation, wrongly concludes that the Father draws only some, not all, to Jesus. Yet Jesus plainly stated that He would draw all men to Himself. This fact cannot be denied by any honest reader of Scripture.

Note, however, that although Jesus is drawing all men to Himself, not all are saved. This again proves that man has a part in his salvation: he must yield to God’s drawing.

John 6:64-65

Another similar Calvinistic misinterpretation revolves around Jesus’ words in John 6:64-65. Jesus said, “But there are some of you who do not believe” (John 6:64a). John then adds: “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, ‘For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.’”

Disregarding the greater context of John 6:41-71 as well as many other Scriptures that reveal God’s desire for all people to come to Jesus (Matthew 11:28; 16:25; 22:9; Mark 16:15; Luke 9:23; John 3:16-17; 5:34-40; 7:37; 12:47; Acts 17:30; 1 Timothy 2:3-6; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 4:14), Calvinists conclude that Jesus’ statement “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father” proves that God sovereignly chooses only some to be saved.

This interpretation stands in contradiction to many plain Scriptures that declare God’s love for all, Jesus’ death for all, and God’s desire that all be saved. Since inspired Scripture cannot contradict itself, we must find an interpretation that harmonizes with the rest of Scripture rather than contradicts it.

When Jesus said, “There are some of you who do not believe,” it was not the first time He mentioned believing in John’s sixth chapter. He spoke of believing in Him in 6:28-29, 35-36, 40, and 47—and He spoke of it in such a way that any unbiased reader would conclude that believing in Him is something anyone can do, and something God desires every person to do.

Thus, in 6:64, Jesus indicts some of His audience for not believing, just as He did in 6:36. Clearly, believing is something they were supposed to do, not something God did for them. Jesus said, “Some of you do not believe.” Those words strongly affirm the non-Calvinist view of human responsibility in salvation.

John then explains that Jesus possessed foreknowledge of those who would not believe, which is no surprise. Non-Calvinists rightly maintain that God knew before the foundation of the world who would and who would not believe in Jesus. John again supports the view that each individual is held responsible to believe. Notice that John said Jesus knew “who they were who did not [not could not] believe, and who it was that would [not had no choice but to] betray Him” (6:64).

Finally, John quotes Jesus: “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father” (6:65). Contextually, Jesus means that God grants that people can come to Him only by believing. This is in perfect harmony with the two preceding verses, the entire context of 6:26-71, and the whole of Scripture.

Calvinists also use this portion of Scripture to support the claim that Judas betrayed Jesus because salvation was not granted to him. This makes God the real betrayer of His Son, eliminating Judas’s responsibility. To the Calvinist, Judas had no choice but to betray Jesus; he was acting out a predetermined destiny.

But if this were true, why would Jesus pronounce woe upon Judas for what he did, clearly holding him responsible? “Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24). How could Jesus rightly hold Judas responsible if he had no free choice? On Calvinistic terms, it was actually God the Father who betrayed Jesus, and Judas was merely a tool. In that case Jesus should have said, “Woe to My Father for betraying Me!”

God Granting Repentance

What about the biblical statements that indicate God grants repentance? For example, Peter proclaimed before the Sanhedrin, “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31).

There are only two possible interpretations of Peter’s statement. Either God was sovereignly giving every totally depraved, unable-to-repent Israelite the ability and the will to repent by irresistible grace (note that Peter said Jesus granted repentance to Israel, not to some Israelites), or God was granting all Israel—individually and corporately—the opportunity to repent, along with His gracious help in their repentance.

If the first interpretation is correct, every Israelite would have been saved, because God granted repentance to Israel as a whole. If Calvinists apply their doctrine consistently here, they must conclude that God bestowed irresistible grace upon every Israelite. Of course, all Israel was not saved, proving the first interpretation incorrect.

This leaves the second interpretation, which alone makes sense and harmonizes with the rest of Scripture. Because God has given man free will, man has a part (albeit a very small part compared with God’s) in his own salvation. He must cooperate with God if he is to be saved. God takes the initiative: He loves the sinner, dies for him, draws and convicts him through creation, providence, and the Spirit, sends messengers, sometimes performs miracles, offers salvation, and gives the opportunity to repent and believe. If the man yields to all this influence, believing the gospel and humbling his proud heart, God’s grace continues to work, helping him to repent by the Holy Spirit’s power—just as He helps the man all the rest of his Christian life to obey God. Both God and man play a part in repentance and ongoing sanctification.

Peter did not believe, when he said Jesus had “granted repentance to Israel,” that man’s free will played no part. He later wrote, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Clearly Peter believed God wants everyone to repent, yet not all do, because they play a part in their repentance.

At the same time, we must never neglect to say that no man can repent apart from God’s grace. We need His help to come to the light, repent, and believe. John Piper cites John 3:20-21 as proof that those who come to the light are those in whom God does His work. I agree: no man will come to the light unless God works in him. Piper, however, elevates such Scriptures that highlight God’s part and does not acknowledge the many that emphasize man’s part. Salvation occurs when a person does not abort God’s plan but cooperates with God, who sent His Son to be “the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (John 1:9). Why does Piper not mention that verse?

When Peter reported to the Jerusalem elders that Gentiles had been saved and God had poured out His Holy Spirit upon them, they acknowledged, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18). They were amazed that God was granting salvation to sinful Gentiles.

According to the Jerusalem elders, God granted repentance to “the Gentiles”—that is, to the Gentiles as a group, not merely to some pre-selected individuals. We have now learned from Scripture that God has granted repentance to Israel (Acts 5:31) and to the Gentiles (Acts 11:18). That includes everyone. Since not all Israelites and Gentiles have repented, we can safely conclude that God’s granting them repentance does not mean man plays no part—which is also obvious from many other Scriptures. Piper neglects those Scriptures that clarify man’s part and quotes only one (2 Timothy 2:24-26), which he misuses to support Calvinism’s one-sided view.

Let us consider that Scripture. Paul wrote:

The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will (2 Timothy 2:24-26).

Paul could not have been saying that man plays no part in repentance and that repentance is a purely sovereign gift; otherwise he would have been contradicting much of what he himself wrote. For example: “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4, emphasis added).

If we are to harmonize Paul with Paul, we must conclude that he was emphasizing God’s part in man’s repentance. No one can repent without God’s help, because unregenerate man is a slave to sin (Romans 6:6). God wants all to repent. He grants every person the opportunity to repent and offers the ability to repent to all who humble themselves. “God… gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). He, not they, frees them from slavery to sin. And that is more likely to happen if the Lord’s bond-servants are kind and gentle to their opponents, because kindness softens hearts.

If God were sovereignly granting repentance apart from man’s willingness, what would be the point of Paul’s admonition to be kind and gentle? It would make no difference. But because God is not granting repentance in that sovereign, irresistible sense, believers’ actions can affect an unbeliever’s receptivity to the freedom from sin that God offers.

In the Calvinistic interpretation of such passages, we see the primary flaw in their method: ignoring context. Calvinists focus on certain “supportive” Scriptures and ignore those that clearly contradict their reading of them. Their interpretation therefore fails to harmonize with the whole of Scripture. They emphasize God’s sovereignty to the extreme, excluding what Scripture says about man’s responsibility and God-given free will. They dive into a haystack looking for a needle; when they are pricked by something sharp, they exclaim, “This isn’t a stack of hay—it’s a stack of needles, just as I suspected!”

The Mind Set on the Flesh Cannot Submit to God

By ignoring context, Calvinists misinterpret many Scriptures. Piper, for example, cites Romans 8:7 to support the idea of unregenerate man’s complete inability to repent and his need of irresistible grace: “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.”

Is this one verse the only statement in Scripture about the state of unregenerate man? Does this single sentence nullify or supersede everything else the Bible says about salvation? Was Paul a fool who contradicted his own teaching earlier in Romans (for example, Romans 2:14-15)?

We must interpret this verse so that it harmonizes with everything else the Bible says. That is easy to do. Paul is simply saying that a mind “set on the flesh”—a hostile mind—does not and cannot submit to God. But does this prove that one cannot, with God’s gracious help, soften that hostile mind, yield to God’s call, and repent of setting the mind on the flesh? No. All of Scripture leads us to believe such a thing is possible.

In the next verse we read, “And those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:8). Does that prove it is impossible for someone to repent, no longer be “in the flesh,” and be “in the Spirit”? Obviously not.

Moreover, Paul did not write Romans 8:7 to prove total depravity and the need for irresistible grace. He was writing to Christians to describe the difference between them and nonbelievers (8:4-11), to help them understand their obligation to put to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit, and to warn them against living according to the flesh lest they die (8:12-14). Once again we see the classic Calvinist error of ignoring context.

Calvinism’s Inconsistency

Piper contradicts his own theology when, after elaborating on man’s total depravity and complete inability to submit to God, he states: “If we think of ourselves as basically good or even less than totally at odds with God, our grasp of the work of God in redemption will be defective. But if we will humble ourselves under this terrible truth of our total depravity…” (p. 8).

Surely Piper is not speaking here to people who have been regenerated and indwelt by God’s Spirit, who are forgiven, clothed in Christ’s righteousness, and set free from sin’s dominion. Such people are not totally depraved. Every Calvinist admits that regenerate people can choose to obey God; therefore no regenerate person can be considered totally depraved by Calvinistic definitions. Piper is speaking to the unregenerate—those whom he says are totally depraved and will always use their freedom to resist God (p. 9), since they have no capacity to do otherwise. Yet he counsels these depraved people to humble themselves, something impossible for them apart from God’s sovereign choice to show them irresistible grace! Like all Calvinists, Piper finds it difficult to remain consistent with his own conclusions.

There is no better illustration of Calvinistic contradiction than at the end of his booklet, where Piper approvingly quotes J. I. Packer explaining what a person who desires to be saved must do. We would expect Packer to say that one can do absolutely nothing, since salvation is supposedly all God’s work and none of man’s. The very question “What must I do to be saved?” reveals, on Calvinistic premises, that the inquirer does not understand that salvation is God’s sovereign work.

The consistent Calvinist must tell such an inquirer: “You can’t do anything! If God has pre-selected you, He will change your will by His irresistible grace, regenerate you, and give you the gifts of repentance and faith. Your very question is presumptuous and reveals your pride. But you can do nothing about your sin of pride, because you are totally depraved and will only use your freedom to resist God. In fact (according to page 6 of Piper’s booklet), you are so totally depraved that any attempts you make at repentance are actually evil in God’s eyes, because everything you do is sin.”

Keep in mind that Piper has already declared that God first sovereignly regenerates the sinner, who then immediately receives Christ. According to the Calvinist, one does not believe in Christ and then receive regeneration; God regenerates him and then he believes, because he had no capacity to believe while dead in sins. Piper writes:

We believe that new birth is a miraculous creation of God that enables a formerly ‘dead’ person to receive Christ and so be saved. We do not think that faith precedes and causes new birth. Faith is the evidence that God has begotten us anew…. The two acts (regeneration and faith) are so closely connected that in experience we cannot distinguish them. God begets us anew and the first glimmer of life in the newborn child is faith. This new birth is the effect of irresistible grace, because it is an act of sovereign creation (pp. 11-12).

So who is this person asking, “What must I do to be saved?” He must be unregenerate, for he confesses that he does not believe he is saved, indicating that God has not regenerated him or given him the gift of faith. As an unregenerate person, he is either predestined to be sovereignly changed by irresistible grace or he is not. (We will later consider Unconditional Election.) If he is not predestined, there is nothing he can do; he will never be saved.

If he is predestined, either God is currently showing him irresistible grace or He is not. If God is currently showing it, the man cannot resist for a moment and must already be regenerate—yet he cannot be regenerate, because he is confessing that he does not believe he is saved.

Therefore God is not currently changing him by irresistible grace. If he is ever to be regenerated, he must wait until God does so.

Thus only two possibilities remain: either the man is predestined to be changed at some future point, or he is not. Currently there is nothing he can do but continue to sin (he is totally depraved), wait, and hope—which, of course, he does not, will not, and cannot do, since he is totally depraved. To tell him to believe in Jesus is absurd, because (on Calvinistic terms) he cannot do that until after he is regenerate. Yet that is exactly what Paul told the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31), because Paul believed Jesus’ plan of salvation rather than Calvin’s.

Now read how Packer answers the person who asks, “What must I do to be saved?” My comments are in brackets.

To the question: what must I do to be saved? The old gospel [Calvinism] replies: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. [Yet why would Packer tell an obviously unregenerate person to do something he cannot possibly do?] To the further question: what does it mean to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? its reply is: it means knowing oneself to be a sinner, and Christ to have died for sinners; abandoning all self-righteousness and self-confidence, and casting oneself wholly upon Him for pardon and peace; and exchanging one’s natural enmity and rebellion against God for a spirit of grateful submission to the will of Christ through the renewing of one’s heart by the Holy Ghost. [Did the Philippian jailer know and do all this in order to be saved?]

So, to believe in Christ and be saved, I must, among other things, abandon all self-righteousness and self-confidence and exchange my natural enmity and rebellion for a spirit of grateful submission. Yet according to the Calvinist I can do none of these things unless God first regenerates me. And if He regenerates me, He also gives me faith in Christ. If I already have faith in Christ, I do not need to be saved. Why, then, is Packer telling me I must do these things “through the renewing of [my] heart by the Holy Ghost”? If my heart is already renewed, I will automatically do those things because God has sovereignly changed me. I am already saved; I do not need to be saved.

Packer is aware of the inconsistency. In attempting to dig himself out, he only digs deeper:

And to the further question still: how am I to go about believing and repenting, if I have no natural ability to do these things? [Great question!] It [Calvinism] answers: look to Christ, speak to Christ, cry to Christ, just as you are [a depraved person who would never and could never look, speak, or cry out to Christ, who cannot submit to God, and whom God is obviously not currently giving irresistible grace—otherwise you would already be regenerate]; confess your sin, your impenitence, your unbelief, and cast yourself on His mercy; ask Him to give you a new heart, working in you [what you obviously do not yet have:] true repentance and firm faith; [Yet all of these things the Calvinist says are impossible for a totally depraved person until he is regenerated by irresistible grace! Packer continues:] ask Him to take away your evil heart of unbelief and to write His law within you, that you may never henceforth stray from Him [How could one who is predestined before time and regenerated by God’s sovereign choice ever turn away from God?]. Turn [!!!!!] to Him and trust Him [!!!!] as best you [!!!!!] can [but you can’t!], and pray for grace to turn and trust more thoroughly; use the means of grace expectantly, looking to Christ to draw near to you as you seek to draw near to Him [Here Packer interestingly reverses the order of James 4:8 and adds the word “seek”—a transparent attempt to make the verse more acceptable to his theology, because he knows totally depraved people cannot “draw near to God”]; watch, pray, read and hear God’s Word, worship and commune with God’s people, and so continue till you know in yourself beyond doubt that you are indeed a changed being [When did that happen?], a penitent believer, and the new heart which you desired [Amazing! A totally depraved person wanted all those things and a new heart before God sovereignly gave it to him against his will!] has been put within you.

Packer’s advice repeatedly contradicts his own theology. According to that theology there are no unregenerate people sincerely seeking to know how to be saved, because totally depraved people use their freedom only to resist God and do evil. Packer would have been more consistent if he had answered, “You can’t be sincere in asking that!”

Not only is Packer’s advice inconsistent; it is potentially dangerous. Suppose a sincere seeker follows Packer’s list and afterward feels he is saved. On what does his faith rest? It cannot rest on any of God’s promises, because, to the Calvinist, there is no promise of salvation that any individual may claim; it is only God’s will for some to be saved, and their names are not listed in the Bible. The only real basis for his faith can therefore be what he has done and is doing. His faith rests in himself, not in Christ—something Scripture repeatedly warns against.

The non-Calvinist, by contrast, can take Jesus at His word: “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). He can cry out in faith, “Lord Jesus, I believe in You, and according to Your promise to everyone (including me), I have eternal life by faith!” His works will immediately validate his faith. While the non-Calvinist rejoices in the gift of salvation and manifests the Spirit’s fruit, the Calvinist is still wondering whether he is one of the chosen ones and is looking at his works to try to convince himself that he is.

God Opens Hearts

Rather than allowing Scripture to balance Scripture, Calvinists consistently focus on passages that emphasize God’s part in salvation and ignore those that focus on man’s part. They conclude that salvation is entirely God’s work and that man has no responsibility. Piper points, for example, to Acts 16:14:

A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.

“See!” the Calvinist exclaims. “God opened Lydia’s heart! That is just another way of saying that God showed her irresistible grace!”

Because such an interpretation stands in absolute contradiction to what thousands of Scriptures say about God and salvation, the person who wants to harmonize Acts 16:14 with the rest of the Bible offers a better reading: Luke is simply emphasizing God’s part in salvation.

God succeeded in doing in Lydia’s heart what He desires to do in everyone’s heart. He succeeded because she, unlike others, first submitted to listen to Paul’s preaching. She could have walked away. She didn’t. Then she yielded to the Holy Spirit’s conviction and drawing. Lydia believed. Over the years I have observed many people “open the hearts” of even their adversaries by various means, but I have never thought they did so without their adversaries’ consent.

In the same chapter we read that the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas what he must do to be saved (Acts 16:30). Paul did not respond, “You can’t do anything! You may be saved only if it is God’s preordained will, and if it is, He will show you His irresistible grace and you will be regenerated and given faith!” Rather, Paul said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31).

Paul could make this promise because he knew salvation is open to anyone who believes in the Lord Jesus. He then “spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house” (Acts 16:32), because “faith comes from hearing” (Romans 10:17). They all believed, were saved, and were baptized.

Here is how a Calvinist must understand the jailer’s salvation: When the jailer asked what he must do to be saved, he was not yet under the influence of irresistible grace; otherwise he would already have been regenerate and would already have received the gifts of faith and repentance. He was therefore still totally depraved, always using his freedom to resist God. Why, then, is a totally depraved person sincerely asking what he must do to be saved? If the Calvinist says it is because this person is under conviction, it must be “resistible grace” rather than “irresistible grace.” Yet according to Piper the totally depraved sinner will always use his freedom to resist God and would never sincerely seek salvation. This jailer, however, was clearly seeking sincerely.

When Paul told the jailer to believe and he would be saved—along with his household—Paul did not know whether the jailer was predestined. On Calvinistic premises he must have been thinking, “I hope this man is one of the predestined ones and that God is about to bestow irresistible grace, because what I have just told him is absolutely impossible for him to do. I have actually given him false hope if he is not predestined. I also hope every member of his household is predestined, otherwise I have deceived him about them as well. Perhaps I should have simply told him the truth about total depravity and irresistible grace.” How could any consistent, thoughtful Calvinist tell people they will be saved if they believe in the Lord Jesus without such thoughts running through his mind?

The book of Acts is full of indications that man plays a part in his salvation (see Acts 2:37-41; 3:19-26; 7:51; 8:6-14, 22-23, 36-37; 9:35, 42; 10:34-35, 43; 11:21; 13:8-13, 38-41, 46-47; 14:1; 15:19; 16:30-34; 17:2-4, 11-12, 17, 30-31; 18:4-8, 19, 27-28; 19:8-9, 18; 20:21; 22:18; 26:17-20; 28:23-24). It is also full of indications that God is actively seeking to get people to respond to His love. Once again we see the primary error of Calvinists: they focus on Scriptures that seem to support their doctrines and ignore those that stand in direct contradiction, failing to harmonize Scripture with Scripture.

Because Acts 2:47 says, “The Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved,” should we conclude from that single verse that God is the only one who plays a part and that man plays none? The verse does not say anyone repented or believed. Should we conclude that no one did, and that God simply saved them? It also does not say anyone preached the gospel to them. Should we conclude that God was saving them without preaching? No intelligent Calvinist would draw such conclusions. Yet that is precisely what Calvinists do with verses such as Acts 16:14. Searching for the needle in the haystack, they are pricked by something sharp and conclude the whole stack is needles, not hay.

Satan Blinds the Minds of Unbelievers

Piper also cites 2 Corinthians 4:3-6 to support irresistible grace:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness,’ is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Does this passage prove that God shines His light only into the darkened hearts of certain ones to whom He shows irresistible grace? Only to someone with a preconceived bias looking for supporting verses. The passage highlights Satan’s part in keeping people in his clutches and God’s part in releasing them. It does not emphasize man’s part in that process, nor is it everything the Bible has to say about salvation.

No Calvinist would conclude from this passage that the only reason unregenerate people perish is that Satan blinds them through no fault of their own. Rather, the Calvinist would quickly say there is more to it—the unsaved man is totally depraved and always uses his freedom to resist God. Every Calvinist would therefore admit that this passage does not explain everything about why man is sinful or how he is freed from sin.

The passage focuses on Satan’s influence and God’s influence. God’s truth can break through the lies of Satan that are believed in the hearts of the unregenerate.

Something of man’s responsibility is also implied: Paul refers to the “perishing” as the “unbelieving.” Unbelieving people are people who do not believe, and believing is something Scripture repeatedly says is man’s responsibility. Everyone—regenerate and unregenerate—believes something. The unregenerate believe Satan’s lies and are thus blinded by him; the regenerate believe God’s truth and are no longer blinded. Moreover, many Scriptures, including the best-known verse in the Bible (John 3:16), tell us that people perish because they do not believe.

Paul also refers to Satan as “the god of this world.” Satan is “the god of this world” because the world has chosen to serve him. When people (to use Jesus’ exact words) “turn… from the dominion of Satan to God” (Acts 26:18), Jesus becomes their Lord and Satan is no longer their master. God frees them from Satan’s power.

2 Corinthians 4:6 does not prove that God sovereignly shines His light into the hearts of those He has pre-selected for salvation and withholds it from those He has pre-selected for damnation. It simply says that God has shone His light into our hearts, contrasting that with Satan who had previously blinded our minds. To extract the Calvinistic concept of irresistible grace from this passage is to force more meaning into it than is there and to produce an interpretation that does not harmonize with the rest of Scripture. Moreover, if God sovereignly preordains who will and who will not be saved, this passage creates more problems for Calvinists than they want to handle: they can only conclude that God—sovereign to the point of being responsible for everything—is the true force behind the satanic deception that blinds unbelievers, and that Satan is not God’s enemy but His obedient helper.

Does the New Birth Precede Faith?

Piper connects irresistible grace with the new birth and states that God sovereignly regenerates us, resulting in our having faith. The only scriptural support he offers is 1 John 5:1, quoted from the Revised Standard Version: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” Piper argues that “has been” indicates that faith is the evidence that one has already been born again prior to believing.

This is poor exegesis. John is not revealing that the new birth precedes faith; he is simply describing one result of faith in Jesus.

John’s clear purpose was not to establish the chronological order of salvation but to state one of the main themes of his first epistle: the evidence of a true Christian. He repeatedly lists three tests: (1) love for the brethren, (2) keeping Christ’s commandments, and (3) believing that Jesus is the Christ. In 1 John 5:1 he touches on the third test, as he does elsewhere (1 John 2:18-27; 4:1-6, 14-15; 5:5, 10, 13).

Clearly John did not believe regeneration precedes faith. He wrote at the close of his Gospel: “These have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31, emphasis added).

Neither did Jesus: “While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light” (John 12:36, emphasis added).

Neither did Paul: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26, emphasis added).

Incidentally, the NASB translation of 1 John 5:1 does not contain the past-tense form on which Piper’s interpretation rests: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is [not has been] born of God.” Piper’s reading of 1 John 5:1 is another imaginary needle in the haystack.

On the same subject Piper attempts to explain away the obvious contradiction between his doctrine and John 1:12-13: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Any normal reader, without a Calvinistic lens, would understand these words to mean that anyone can receive Christ by believing in His name, and that as many as do, God gives them the right to become His children. Believing therefore comes before regeneration. This regeneration is not a physical birth, and it does not happen because man willed it, but because God willed it. No person can cause himself to be spiritually reborn. But God will regenerate anyone who believes in Jesus and make that person His child.

In his explanation Piper contradicts both himself and John: “In other words, it is necessary to receive Christ in order to become a child of God [that means one receives Christ before becoming a child of God; receiving Christ is a condition that must first be met], but the birth that brings one into the family of God is not possible by the will of man. Man is dead in trespasses and sins. He cannot make himself new or create new life in himself. He must be born of God. Then, with the new nature of God, he immediately receives Christ.” This directly contradicts what Piper has just said and what John actually wrote.

Conclusion

Under the scrutiny of Scripture, the Calvinistic doctrines of total depravity and irresistible grace are found to add to and contradict the revelation of the Bible.

These doctrines nullify Scripture’s clear teaching regarding man’s sovereignly-granted free will and his responsibility to respond to the gospel and cooperate with God.

They make human beings into robots, incapable of making moral choices and having no capacity to love.

They make Christians into people whom God forced against their wills to become His children.

They make the preaching of the gospel senseless and make liars out of all gospel preachers who lead people to believe they have a choice.

They make meaningless Christ’s and His apostles’ appeals to repent and the hundreds of Scriptures that state that people have the ability to do so.

They make God an unjust judge who condemns people for doing what they are incapable of not doing.

They also make Him a confused being who works against Himself yet cooperates with Satan, and a hypocrite who condemns others for what He Himself is guilty of.

Moreover, they make Him responsible for the damnation of billions and ultimately for all the suffering in the world, since only He can stop sin, yet He chooses not to regenerate billions of sinners.

Finally, Calvinists are unable to live consistently with their own doctrine. If they preach any gospel at all, they preach a deceptive Arminian gospel. They must lie (according to their own definition of truth) to anyone who asks, “What must I do to be saved?”—as J. I. Packer’s advice to sincere seekers reveals.

All of this is done at the expense of Scripture, upon which they force their interpretations and which they twist—so that millions are currently deceived by their doctrine. How many people have given up hope of salvation because of Calvinistic teaching, thinking they are not among the elect because they have felt no irresistible grace? How many unregenerate people have deceived themselves into believing they are among the elect, and thus claim what they do not possess and can never forfeit?

Dear Calvinist, the blood of such people is on your hands.