Q&A: If Salvation Depends on our Free Choice, How are we Saved by Grace?
As a companion to today’s testimony and the link to Greg’s thoughts on Romans 9, we thought it would be helpful to post this Q&A on salvation by grace within the Open View of the future. Enjoy!
Question: I’m an Arminian-turned-Calvinist, and the thing that turned me was the realization that if salvation hinges on whether individuals choose to be saved or not, as Arminians and Open Theists believe, then we can’t say salvation is 100% by grace. If we have to choose for or against God, then the credit for our salvation ultimately goes to us. But the Bible teaches that all the credit goes to God and that we can’t choose to confess Jesus as Lord unless empowered by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3). So the ultimate reason why some are saved and some are not isn’t that some choose to confess Christ while others don’t. It must rather be that the Holy Spirit empowers some and not others. And so I’ve come to accept that God chooses (elects) who will and will not be saved. You, of course, reject Calvinism and affirm free will. So I’m wondering, how can you affirm that humans are saved totally by grace?
Answer: I firmly believe that salvation is completely by grace, not works. And I believe the Bible teaches that humans would never choose God on their own, apart from the Holy Spirit. Left on our own, we are “dead” toward spiritual things (Eph 2:1, 5), and corpses can’t do much of anything last I checked. To come to Christ, the Father must draw us (Jn 6:44).
If it was true that humans had enough life, goodness, or intelligence to choose God on their own, and if the reason that some were saved and some not was because some chose God on their own and some didn’t, then I see no way one could avoid the conclusion that the reason some are saved and some not is because some are better or smarter than others! So saved people, give yourself a nice pat on the back!
At the same time, it seems just as clear that God does not pick and choose who will be saved. He doesn’t want anyone to perish but wants all to enter into eternal life (2 Pet 3:9; 2 Tim. 2:4-6). Jesus died for the sins of every person (1 Jn 2:2). So, any line of reasoning that leads to a portrait of God as less-than-universal in his love and less-than-universal in his desire to save people must have something wrong with it.
As I see it, the mistake in the line of reasoning that leads to the Reformed doctrine of election is the assumption that God’s grace must be irresistible. (This is the “I” of the famous Calvinistic Acronym “TULIP”). It’s one thing to say that humans won’t believe in Christ without the Holy Spirit and quite another thing to claim that with the Holy Spirit humans must believe.
As I put aspects of the biblical narrative together, I am led to the conclusion that God wants everyone saved and the Holy Spirit is working in every person’s heart to bring them into salvation. (The issue of whether people need to be brought to the point where they consciously choose Christ to be saved is a separate matter). But the Holy Spirit will not work coercively, for coerced love is not genuine love. So it is that through the Bible we have warnings to not resist the Holy Spirit (e.g. Acts 7:51; Eph 4:30; Heb 3:7-8). The Holy Spirit will bring us to the point where we can believe, but never to a point where we must believe. So, if we do believe, it is all credited to God’s grace, working through the Spirit. If we refuse, however, it’s our own fault.
Does this view in any way compromise the claim that salvation is 100% by grace? Does it leave room for anyone to take any credit for their salvation? I don’t see how it does. Consider this analogy.
Suppose that salvation is dancing to God’s beautiful music. God graciously places us in a room with two loudspeakers and begins to play his music. Surprisingly, we rebel, cup our hands over our ears and begin to sing our own songs to ourselves, dancing to our own music (representing the fall and our on-going sin). God graciously does not give up on us, however. He graciously turns the music up louder, but we continue to rebel by covering our ears harder and singing louder. He turns it up louder and louder, but we persist in our rebellion.
God then graciously puts two more speakers in the room playing them at full volume, and when that fails, he puts in ten more, and then a hundred more, and so on until the room is wall-to-wall speakers, playing at full blast. Incredibly, all these gracious overtures just make us resist more forcefully.
Yet, God continues to desperately want us to dance to his beautiful music, so in the most remarkable act of grace imaginable, and at great sacrifice to himself (representing the Incarnation and death of Christ), God himself comes into the room and begins to personally do everything possible to get us to lower our arms and dance to his music. Weeping and pleading, he himself pulls at our arms to lower them from our ears. We all resist…but finally, his relentless love wears some of us out. We begin to hear the music. We see his relentless love.
And we begin to dance.
This is an analogy, of course, and so it only imperfectly reflects the way in which God saves us. But it’s helpful in getting at the question we’re presently wrestling with. Would any of those who were finally won over to God’s music be inclined to credit themselves for their dancing? After all their rebellion and all God’s grace, would anyone attribute their dancing to their innate intelligence or goodness? Would they not rather testify that the only reason they eventually danced to God’s music was because God was relentless in his grace and wore them out with his love? Would they not say that they’re dancing was 100% God’s doing? I don’t see how it could be otherwise. And yet, as strong and relentless as God was toward toward them, he did not coerce them.
This view is not without its mystery, but it’s not the mystery of why God would irresistibly choose some when he could have just as easily irresistibly chosen all (while telling us he wants all to be saved). The mystery in this view is how anyone could, and why anyone would, continue in their rebellion. This is the unfathomable mystery of iniquity.
Whatever I make of this mystery, it seems more biblical and less problematic than the mystery of a selectively saving God. And the last thing it would ever do is make me feel self-righteous for being set free from its dominion.
“[God] has mercy on whomsoever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomsoever he chooses.” This is one of the most frequently cited texts in support of Calvinism. If the text implied that whether or not people were believers was a result of whether God had mercy on them or hardened them, they would…
I along with most evangelical scholars and pastors do not believe it possible for a Christian to be “possessed” by a demon or by Satan. Christ in principle defeated Satan, and all who are “in Christ” share in this victory (e.g., John 12:31; Col. 2:13–15; 2 Thess. 3:3; Heb. 2:14–15; 1 John 5:18). Colossians 1:13…
How can people who believe the open view trust a God who doesn’t control the future and doesn’t know for sure what will happen?
It’s true that according to the open view of the future things can happen in our lives which God didn’t plan or even foreknow with certainty (though he always foreknew they were possible). In this view, trusting in God provides no assurance that everything that happens to us will reflect his divine purposes, for there…
Image by Lori Greig via Flickr Yesterday, we posted about how Messianic prophesies are understood in the open view of the future. Today, this post will look at prophesies that are not fulfilled in the way predicted and what that can tell us about the open view of the future. In John Goldingay’s excellent multi-volume work, Old…
God “changed his mind” (3:10) about the destruction he planned to carry out on Nineveh. If all events in history are eternally settled and known by God as such, his word to Jonah that he planned to destroy Nineveh in forty days was insincere as was his inspired testimony that he in fact changed his…
Question: In The Myth of a Christian Nation, you emphasize our need to sacrificially serve others. But you didn’t emphasize our need to “preach the Gospel to every living creature.” I’ve been intrigued by the movement known as “confrontational evangelism,” associated with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They stress the need to get people to…