rejection

How Calvinism Misses the Point About Salvation

Calvinists sometimes argue that various passages in John teach that the Father chooses and then “draws” certain people to Christ. Those who are “drawn” certainly come to Christ (John 6:37) while all who are not drawn remain in their sin. For example, John portrays Jesus as repeatedly teaching that “no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him” (Jn 6:65), while “[a]ll that the Father gives [to Christ]…will come [to Christ]” (Jn 6:37). Those who are the Father’s gift to the Son are “of God”; they are Christ’s “sheep,” and therefore they hear Christ’s voice (John 10:3). Christ chooses them before they choose him (Jn 15:16–19). Others, however, cannot believe because they are not “of God”; they rather belong to the devil (Jn 8:42–47).

In short, such passages are interpreted to teach “particular election” (that is, God chooses to save some and not to save others).

I agree that the Gospel of John emphasizes divine control. Clearly one of John’s central concerns is to highlight the dimension of divine control surrounding the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ—including the development of faith in the hearts of those who followed him. The ability to believe and follow the Son is a gift bestowed by the sovereign God, not a work that anyone autonomously produces on their own.

However, along with the rest of the New Testament, John also emphasizes that God’s love is universal. It is God’s love for the entire world that leads him to send Jesus into the world and offer salvation to “whoever” would believe (Jn 3:16). John also clearly states that God’s will is to draw “all people” to Christ (John 12:32–33, cf. 1 John 2:2). Thus, if people refuse to accept this gracious invitation, this is not because the Father excluded them from his love ahead of time. As much as John emphasizes God’s control in the events surrounding the cross, and God’s influence in producing obedient faith in his “sheep,” John never portrays anyone as lacking the power to do other than they do—whether they choose to follow God or the devil! Those who believe are warned not to leave (or be stolen), and those who do not believe are repeatedly invited to do so (Jn 3:16, 18, 36; 7:38; 11:26; 10:9–10).

The question is, how do we reconcile this freedom to follow or not to follow Christ with John’s teaching that faith is a gift of God—viz. that only those whom the Father “draws” can come to Christ?

There are several ways to reconcile these motifs, all of which avoid the conclusion that God has decided from before creation which particular individuals will and will not be saved. These alternative readings, in other words, avoid making God appear arbitrary and duplicitous in saying he loves everyone and seemingly offers salvation to all, while enabling only a few to come to Christ when he could have just as easily enabled all. The Father’s “drawing” (which leads to salvation) and the devil’s stealing (which leads to damnation) are cosmic factors that work in conjunction with, but not in control of, the human volition. In other words, if a human heart is willing to submit, the Father will lead them to a saving faith relationship with Christ. The Father “draws” people (or not) in response to their hearts. If a human heart is unwilling, however, it is hardened to God’s leading and comes under the influence of Satan.

God wants all to be saved and is working in every human heart to get each person to accept the Gospel. But people can and do resist God’s influence and thwart his will for their lives (see e.g. Lk 7:30). When a heart has been successfully opened, however, God goes further and “draws” that person to Jesus Christ.

Image by Just1of7billion via Flickr.

Related Reading

What is the significance of Exodus 32:33 ?

The Lord says “I will blot out of my book” all those who persist in rebellion against him. If everything is eternally foreknown by God, one wonders why he would have recorded in his “book” the names of people who were to be blotted out eventually (cf. Rev. 3:5). Indeed, if God foreknew that certain…

Topics:

Two Ancient (and Modern) Motivations for Ascribing Exhaustively Definite Foreknowledge to God

A historic overview and critical assessment Abstract: The traditional Christian view that God foreknows the future exclusively in terms of what will and will not come to pass is partially rooted in two ancient Hellenistic philosophical assumptions. Hellenistic philosophers universally assumed that propositions asserting’ x will occur’ contradict propositions asserting’ x will not occur’ and…

What is the significance of Judges 2:20–3:5?

The Lord did not provide any assistance in Israel’s battles, “In order to test Israel, whether or not they would take care to walk in the way of the Lord as their ancestors did” (vs. 22). The pagan opponents of Israel “were for the testing of Israel, to know whether Israel would obey the commandments…

Topics:

How do you respond to Matthew 16:21?

“From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” The ministry and death of Jesus are the centerpieces of God’s plan in world…

What is your perspective on the classical view that God is above time?

In a major strand of hellenistic (Greek) philosophy, change was seen as being an imperfection. This idea was adopted by many early Church fathers and eventually became almost an assumed dogma of the Church. It was thus assumed that, since God is perfect, he must be above all change. Not only does his character and…

Podcast: What Does God Actually DO in the World?

Greg discusses what a God, who takes his hands off of us, who gives up control for us, who accommodates for us, actually does in the world. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0215.mp3