Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt
(Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org
HAS GOD A CHOICE IN WHO IS SAVED
AND DOES HE SAVE ANYONE ELSE OTHER THAN THOSE HE HAS CHOSEN?
David
Cloud has decided it's time for another one of his sorties against the
Doctrines of Grace. Although there is nothing new, either in this
policy or its content, yet I usually make a point in answering him. It
would pain me to see his arguments being won by default. So, totally
void of any personal bitterness, here is my answer to Mr Cloud and
those of his school who make the following statements. Under the title,
SOME MAJOR FALSE DOCTRINES THAT ARE A DANGER TO BIBLE-BELIEVING CHURCHES TODAY
(The words major false doctrines are not lost on this reviewer)
Calvinism comes in at number twelve. Cloud's words are in DARK
BLUE…my comments, as ever, in red.
12. The false teaching that God chooses who will be saved and that only those who are chosen can be saved (Calvinism)
I
really do find this statement amazing. The main point of difference
between Calvinists and other evangelical people on this matter of
election is on what basis God makes His choice. Calvinists believe the
choice is unconditional. The others, believe that it is conditional
i.e. upon foreseen faith and repentance. Although Cloud makes an
attempt to say as much in point f., yet even there he is contradicting
himself. Election is God's choice. If He chooses some to be saved, then
He (by the same token) obviously chooses that others will not be saved.
The Calvinist position makes election (unto life) to be solely on the
basis of God's grace with the sinner's faith and repentance flowing
from his election. Those who are not thus elected are left in their
sins and are damned, not because they are were passed by, but because
they were and are sinners. Thus election is of all of grace, damnation
is all of sin. (It is my experience that this last sentence, which is
vital to the understanding to the whole, is generally lost on those who
take the anti-Calvinist ground.) This is the balanced Calvinistic
position, adhered to by all the Puritans and Church Confessions etc.,
As it stands in the title which Cloud uses above, it is a false
teaching that God makes any choice and that only those chosen will be
saved. We are left to conclude that God elected or chose nobody, and
that those who are non elect (by whatever means: conditional or
unconditional) can be saved. At best, the title is exceedingly clumsy
and at worst, Cloud is going further and further into the practice of
robbing God of His free will.
Bible Answer:
Here Cloud
seeks to support his position by appealing to Scripture. However, we
will see if his "proof texts" really do support his proposition that it
is a false doctrine to teach that God actually has a choice in who will
be saved and that His choice only can be saved.
a. The Bible says that God wants all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-5; 2 Pet. 3:9).
As is common
with those of Cloud's school of interpretation, Cloud automatically
assumes that all men in both texts automatically means "each and every
person ever born." However, this position should not be automatically
assumed.
[1] The phrase "all men" can also mean "all kinds of men" i.e. without
any social, geographical etc., distinction. Any concordance will prove
the point. If you substitute "each and every person ever born" when you
read "all men" you will run into problems in many texts where such an
interpretation is impossible. True, "all men" can carry this meaning,
not least in Acts 17:31 where all men everywhere are commanded to
repent, but it is highly questionable that such is meant in the verses
which Cloud quotes above.
[2] If God wants each and every person ever born to be saved, then certain questions must be answered.
[i] Why was
salvation largely limited to the Jews in the OT era while our Gentile
forefathers perished in heathen darkness? Why are there men today still
un-reached with the gospel? I am not asking why do such perish. I know
why they perish. Their own conscience condemns them for their sin
(Romans 2:15) But why has no missionary ever been sent to effectually
reach them? In all my research into these things, I have yet to meet
any of Cloud's school who can answer this. The fact is that God does
not treat all men without exception equally. He treats them all fairly,
but some are treated more graciously than others, even to the point
where the others never get to hear the gospel preached to them. Is this
not true? It is either is or it isn't. And it is.
[ii] If God has
decreed to save everyone equally, then is He disappointed that His
decree has failed? Is failure an attribute of God? Calvinists say that
God did not decree to save everyone. We say that He decreed to save
only His chosen ones and that they, through gospel preaching etc., will
be brought effectually to Christ and preserved unto glory. Thus God
gets what He wants. As we would expect. However Cloud's school of
thought cannot say this. God, in their theology, must be frustrated. He
has handcuffed Himself. It is sovereign man - and that as a corrupt
sinner - who occupies the driving seat and although God might know i.e.
with the barest of previews, who will decide to believe Him after all,
yet there is nothing certain about it. I'm sorry, I cannot go along
with that kind of thinking. Not only is it un-Biblical, but I find it
depressing. I have no motivation for my evangelism.
[3] It is true that some Calvinists e.g. Spurgeon do teach that the "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:3-5
is indeed every last sinner, but they carefully preserve the doctrine
of God's choice by reducing the force of the "willeth." He says: "It is
quite certain that when we read that God will have all men to be saved
it does not mean that he wills it with the force of a decree or a
divine purpose, for, if he did, then all men would be saved. He willed
to make the world, and the world was made: he does not so will the
salvation of all men, for we know that all men will not be saved."
Elsewhere, Spurgeon believed that God decreed that some men would be
saved. You can read his sermons on election for yourself.
[4] In 2
Peter 3:9 Calvinists differ again, but unite on the pretty obvious
thought that such a will on the part of God did not extend to Him
decreeing that all men would be saved. Some limit the all men by the
opening words of the epistle i.e. it addressed to the elect (1:2) while
others point out that God, who is a God of love, has no pleasure in
damning men, even those whom He has passed by. Either way, neither of
these texts proves Cloud's theory.
b. Jesus died for the sins of all men, not just some who are pre-chosen (1 John 2:1-2).
Cloud here
shifts ground from his declared intention (as proclaimed in the title)
of seeking to refute the Calvinistic view of election to seeking to
refute another Calvinistic doctrine i.e. of particular and effectual
atonement. Again, he assumes that the word world must mean every last
individual ever born. Again, a concordance will disabuse us of that
e.g. John 12:19-20 etc., This theory that Christ died for the sins of
every last person who ever lived does not stand up to biblical
scrutiny.
[i] Did Christ actually atone for the sins of those already and eternally in hell in AD33?
[ii] Did Christ
actually atone for the sins of those who have never heard the gospel
even once and who lived and died in heathen darkness?
[iii] Did Christ make atonement for the unpardonable sin?
[iv] If Christ
actually died for the sins of those men who are now in hell, then is
God demanding punishment twice? Is this just?
[v] Having seen
the travail of His soul, is Christ actually satisfied that He will fail
to save some of those for whom He is said to have made atonement?
(Isaiah 53:11)
Again this so
called proof text does not prove Cloud's statement, partly because he
changes subject and secondly because his exegesis of the text fails to
recognise that the word "world" denotes (in this instance) the Gentiles
as well as the Jews, leading him to attribute (again) failure to the
purposes of God.
c. God has ordained that every person who believes on Christ will be saved (Jn. 6:40).
Calvinists
agree 100% with this statement. That Cloud should raise it here is a
mystery. Of course, Calvinists believe that the ordination of God
extends to the "every person who believes" and not only the result of
believing. Evidently from his title, Cloud believes that the thought
that God actually played a role at this point endangers Bible believing
churches (!) Again, in Cloud's theology, God must stand idly by while
sovereign man decides what he will do with God. The more I read of
Cloud's theology, atleast on this issue of Calvinism, the more I feel
sorry for God. And I never get that feeling when I read my Bible.
d. God has commanded that the gospel be preached to every person (Mark 16:15).
Again, since
Calvinists believe this 100%, we are left wondering why Cloud should
state the obvious. It certainly does not prove his theory.
e. The Holy Spirit convicts every sinner and Jesus draws and gives light to every sinner (Jn. 1:9; 12:32; 16:7-8).
The extent of
"every man" in John 1:9 and the "world" in the other references is
again a matter of debate. The terms themselves may admit of a greater
or lesser number, as the concordance will prove. Does "every man ever
born" press into the Kingdom of God? (Luke 16:16) It is Cloud and his
school who are in danger of drifting towards the burning wreck of
Universalism. To avoid such a calamity (as I'm sure they would want to
do) then they must admit that these terms may have a lesser connotation
than they generally give to them.
If we
maximise the universal terms ("all/every/world") then we must minimise
the benefits being bestowed i.e. state that they are not actually
saving in themselves. Alternatively, if we minimise these terms (i.e.
all kinds of) and apply them solely to the elect of God, then may
maximise their impact i.e. make them saving. It really is a simple
choice. It appears that Cloud would rather maximise the universal
terms, yet admit that the benefits such receive are not saving.
Ok…but such does not rule out that God makes choices and follows
up such general dealings with men with specific salvation dealings.
f. Believers are the elect of
God, but that does not mean that God chooses some to be saved and the
others not to be saved. Election is based on God’s foreknowledge
(1 Pet. 1:2).
Thankfully
I can agree with Cloud that believers are the elect of God. I think I
know what he is getting at when he says that doesn't mean that God
chooses some to be saved and others not to be saved. I suspect that he
thinks Calvinists attribute the same reasons for His choice of some to
be saved to His choice of those who are left behind. If so, I can
disabuse him of this erroneous perception. God chooses men out of the
mass of lost humanity purely on the basis of His grace. To avoid
misunderstanding, Calvinists prefer to say that He leaves the others in
their chosen sins to be damned. Again to quote the great Calvinistic
maxim, Salvation is all of grace, damnation is all of sin. Please
remember, Calvinism doesn't damn any more than any other school of
thought inside the evangelical family. We only damn (as it were)
unbelievers. Ultimately since this is the way it is, we may say that
God chose to have it so and therefore, in this context, it may be said
that God chooses who will be saved and who will be lost. However, no
man may justly blame God for his damnation. Damnation is always
judicial.
To
say that election is based on God's foreknowledge is 100% true. Again
the bald stating of a doctrinal point is insufficient and therefore
disappointing. These matters are not best served by such treatment.
Those of Cloud's school read into texts like 1 Peter 1:2 that God
foreknew who would believe the gospel and on that condition elected
them to everlasting life. However the word foreknowledge is a lot
stronger than bare prescience. In its only other use (Acts 2:23) it is
preceded by the word "determinate counsel" in relation to the Cross.
The truth is that God foreknew because God foreordained who would
believe. It is a logical absurdity to teach that God foreknew what
would happen and then ordained it to happen. If it was foreseen, then
it would happen whether God allowed it or not.
END OF CLOUD'S ARTICLE
DOES GOD CHOOSE MEN TO SALVATION?
Blessed
be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us
with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as
he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we
should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having
predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to
himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of
the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the
beloved. (Ephesians 1:3-6)
The difference between the two
schools of thought is this. In Cloud's school men make the sovereign
choice and the predestination is ultimately according to the good
pleasure of the penitent's will. In Calvinism, we take the scriptural
line that predestination is God's choice and that we are predestinated
according to the good pleasure of God's will. Cloud's theology is man
centred. Calvinism, as admitted elsewhere by Cloud, is God centred. He
says in another page:
1. Calvinism exalts God as the
sole Author of salvation and gives glory to Him alone. In this, it is
exactly correct and perfectly biblical and right on target. There is no
salvation apart from God. There is no good in man and there is nothing
he can do to achieve his salvation. It must be entirely of God. Except
that God in His mercy and grace has provided salvation in Christ and
has drawn men to this salvation, convicting them and enlightening them
and granting them faith and repentance (which are both gifts of God),
no man would be saved. All glory to God.
2. Calvinism humbles man and
gives him no role in salvation and nothing to glory of. This is the
flip side of the previous point, and in this Calvinism is perfectly
scriptural. The Bible gives man nothing whatsoever in which to glory.
Salvation is entirely of God and nothing of man. Romans 4:2 says that
if Abraham's salvation were not entirely of God he would have something
to boast of, but of course that is impossible because no man can ever
boast of anything before a thrice holy God. Even man's righteousness,
his very best deeds, are but filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6).
I agreed with his comments
then, just as I agree with them now. However, Cloud's theology in this
matter of election does give man somewhat in which to glory. Because
Cloud and those of his school make election conditional on man's choice
- with every man getting (I assume) an equal proportion of faith and
repentance - then man can boast. After all…does the difference
between him and a reprobate like Judas Iscariot not exist solely in
what he did with his generally given faith and generally given
repentance? Such a faith and repentance is no longer to be viewed as a
special gift from God, but comes upon all men without exception alike.
Can he not thank God that he is not as other men are - wasters of the
saving grace of God that didn't actually save because it was all
dependent on his sovereign free will which dictated to God's will what
could and could not be done? Cloud doubtless will recoil from such a
thought (I hope so) and so would any evangelical Bible believing
Christian. Yet such is the logical outcome of his teaching.
Two things in closing.
One: I do not believe that Mr. Cloud and those of his school worship
another god or preach another gospel. I have consciously avoided saying
using phrases like this, because I do not think them to be true. I do
believe though, that Mr. Cloud in his views weakens the Biblical view
of God and dilutes the gospel which he purports to defend. This is more
of a danger to Bible believing churches than simply letting God be God.
Secondly: At no time should this page or any other page be construed as
a personal attack on Mr. Cloud. I may offer criticism of his teachings
on this matter and even (I believe for exceptionally good reasons)
query his fitness to be a reliable critic of Calvinism, but this is all
part and parcel of debate within the body of Christ. If there are any
developments within this debate which necessitates me modifying my
comments in any way, I will notify the reader under the recent updates
on our index page.