Hypo-Calvinism's Resistible Grace

Hypo-Calvinists often make the very same arguments against Calvinism that Arminians make. For example, they lift out of Scripture isolated verses which seem to suggest that God's grace can be resisted to support their false teaching of a universal resistible grace of God which does not actually save. When they do this they behave as heretics not interpreting according to the rule of Scripture which clearly teaches:

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (Rom. 9:18-20)

I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let [prevent] it? (Isa. 43:12-13)

Sometimes the hypo-Calvinists claim that they only want to teach that there is a different grace of God which concerns common gifts like rain and sunshine (good providence, but not grace, and which is turned into a trap and a snare to the unthankful and ungodly; Ps. 69:22), that has nothing really to do with salvation, except that it supposedly restrains sin by making people less than totally depraved (in fact, God has appointed many other ways in which the expression of sin is restrained). At the same time, their concern is to prove that God somehow has a will or desire to save the reprobate which is unfulfilled (or effectually resisted). In their clamour to find passages to support this idea (and because the only grace that Scripture knows is saving grace), they fall upon passages that are clearly speaking about salvation.

One of these passages is Acts 7:51, in which Stephen accuses his Jewish hearers (and accusers) that they are uncircumcised in heart and always resist the Spirit just as their fathers did (after giving many examples of the resistance of their fathers to the Spirit). The saving work of the Spirit throughout the entire Old Testament is in view here (not common good gifts like rain and sunshine or any kind of inner restraint of sin). The Arminian and the hypo-Calvinist latch on to the term "irresistible" in the doctrine of "irresistible grace" as if that meant that this grace cannot be resisted in any sense. In fact, the doctrine of irresistible grace is that the grace of God cannot be resisted effectually (because it is God's grace, and God cannot be resisted effectually). Can God be resisted? Yes, of course, Scripture is literally full of examples (as Stephen's speech proves). For example, one might resist God by resisting the powers He has appointed (Rom. 13:2) or by resisting His truth (II Tim. 3:8). But all of this resistance fails miserably:

And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? (Dan. 4:35)

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. (Ps. 2:1-4)

But the passage itself tells us they were unable to resist the wisdom and Spirit by which Stephen spoke (Acts 6:10; cf. Luke 21:15). Does that mean they didn't resist in any sense? Of course not, the whole passage is a description of their energy and zeal to resist, culminating in their stoning Stephen to death. But they could not effectually resist, so that by their efforts the witness of the church spread further and all the more powerfully (Acts 8:4). Even then they were not satisfied and continued and increased their persecution. One of these persecutors was Paul. Paul also resisted the Spirit in Stephen's witness, even consenting unto his death (Acts 8:1). Yet Paul failed to effectually resist God's will to save him when the time came on the Damascus road.

Did God really only will to save men in general using resistible grace (as the Arminian claims), or did God will to save Paul in particular and make him an apostle to the Gentiles?

Whereof [the gospel] I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: (Eph. 3:7-9)

And the salvation of Paul is a pattern for all of us who likewise by nature resist the Spirit:

And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first [pre-eminently] Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." (I Tim. 1:12-16)

In the history related by Stephen, God actually accomplished His will (and promise) to save His people despite all the resistance. That's the apostolic explanation in Romans 9:

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Rom. 9:6-8)

Positively, God's word and promise was effectual! It cannot be otherwise, because it is God's word and promise. God's grace must always be effectual because it is God's grace. Besides, the passage (Acts 7:51) speaks about resisting the Spirit. The Spirit is the omnipotent God Himself who cannot be effectually resisted. God is almighty, therefore His grace is almighty. God is one, therefore His grace is one.

The Harmony of Doxology and Praxeology in Duty-Faith

I recently asked someone "who is the subject of our believing?" and "do we believe unto salvation?" because I was not sure they were comfortable with the biblical answers to those questions ("we believe" and "saved by grace through faith"). This person seemed reluctant to respond, as if the biblical answers to those questions would inherently conflict with the truths that all glory belongs to God, and that our believing (both the will and the act) is the necessary fruit of the effectual work of God's Spirit in us. My concern is that rather than pitting truths that Scripture teaches against each other, we reconcile and systematize the truth and confess it as a whole, not favouring one at the expense of another.

Noah and the ark is a good example. Scripture clearly teaches that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, and that God saved Noah by His grace. Scripture also teaches that by faith Noah built an ark to the saving of his house (Heb. 11:7). How do we reconcile these so that we confess both in harmony and clarity?

The building of the ark by the hand of Noah was part of the necessary manner in which God had determined saved them, and the ark was an instrument (necessary according to God's plan). Therefore God worked effectually in Noah both to will and to do, so that Noah built the ark. Since God worked in Noah, the glory for Noah's willing and Noah's doing must be attributed to God's work in Noah's heart. If that is the case, then all glory for Noah's work, and the fruit of it (the ark), is God's, and all glory for salvation through the ark is God's. Then we need not fear saying with Scripture that Noah built the ark.

In reluctance to give the hearty biblical answer to these questions, apparently concerned that the answers would somehow not attribute all glory to God, this person instead elevated my initial concern by asking me "who is responsible for our believing?" God is responsible for the work He does in our hearts which necessarily and effectually causes us to believe (both our will and our act). We are responsible for our believing. That we are responsible for the duty of believing is evident in that we are commanded to believe, and we are judged for the sin of unbelief. And we all ought to be aware that denying that faith is a duty is the most basic and clear form of hyper-Calvinism.

We ought to be more fearful of falling into that error (clearly condemned by Scripture and the Reformed confessions) than simply making statements that Scripture itself is unashamed to make, such as "Noah built the ark" and "we believe" and "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness". Where appropriate, where we think such statements may be misunderstood (e.g. if talking to an Arminian), we may add clarification to those statements (just as we would clarify that "we believe" if we said "all glory belongs to God" when talking to a hyper-Calvinist).

But we may not accuse or attack people if they do not clarify something exactly to the extent that we would in every situation. In pedagogy it is simply not possible to explain everything all at once. This is why we take a full year or more to go through the Heidelberg Catechism. It's not possible to fit everything into one sermon. There is a lot of content to our (objective) faith, which we must learn and grow in over time - holding the truth together, not raising one statement in conflict with others, but understood as a consistent systematic whole.

A teacher must build, and they must build in a certain order, and step by step, building upon what was laid down previously, sometimes belabouring points that a congregation is weak on, sometimes taking small steps, and being careful not to take too many steps all at once. We cannot condemn them if they don't fully repeat a step they taught in the previous lesson, nor may we cling to one particular lesson and refuse to hear the next. And each lesson will have a different emphasis, so that as a whole, all of the truth is emphasized in its place. We must not ignore and discard last week's sermon when we hear this week's sermon, but we must reconcile these together. And if we cannot reconcile them, we ought to ask others for help, up to and including asking the teacher, because if the teacher cannot reconcile these, then it is quite possible there is some error present which must be uncovered. If the teacher is building carefully, it should be easy to see how all these things are reconciled, but not all teachers are as skilful or use the same method, and as listeners we have to be patient and charitable.

Paul's letter to the Romans is a good example. He emphasizes the glory of God at the end of chapter 11. It is not that he has ignored it up to this point, but he has been building, so that when all these points come together, he can emphasize the glory of God in relation to what has gone before in its place. But he also doesn't stop there, he immediately moves on to practical application (chapters 12-16). There is no true doxology without proper praxeology, but each in its place, and each related to each other in harmony. This is why Calvin's big issue in "The Necessity of Reforming the Church" was that Rome had corrupted the right worship of God. His concern for doxology meant that he was necessarily concerned about praxeology. It would be the height of hypocrisy for the church to preach beautifully and wondrously about the glory of God, and never to preach about how we must therefore glorify Him in everything. Sadly, hyper-Calvinists dive headlong into this hypocrisy when they deny duty-faith.

The Time, Necessity, and Activity of our Believing

Suggesting that because the Reformed faith rebukes the errors of hyper-Calvinists who deny that we believe unto salvation, we are somehow claiming credit for faith and teaching it as a condition rather than attributing all glory to God is absurd. Consider this passage in which Paul describes his teaching:

"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (I Cor. 2:1-9)

1. Paul's preaching was Christ-centred, and specifically centred upon His crucifixion for us.
2. Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate (one of the princes of this world) historically, and was crucified at a specific time according to the determinate counsel of God (Acts 2:23), therefore the centre of Paul's preaching was primarily this historical event rather than the eternal counsel in which it was determined and planned.
3. The manner of Paul's speech was not that of a great orator trying to impress with his words, but of a man deeply humbled, broken before God, and in awe at the wondrous grace of God to him personally who was before a blasphemer and persecutor (I Tim. 1:12-16). I allow you to examine and apply this pattern to hyper-Calvinist preachers who typically attract followers by their demeanour and words and actions (with comparisons and incessant accusations against others) presenting themselves as somehow more orthodox and more profound and more powerful in their preaching than those who preach the simple gospel of Christ crucified. Paul simply presents Jesus Christ in power, and himself only in weakness.
4. The central subject and manner of his preaching were necessary for the source of their faith, because true faith does not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of the Spirit. The Spirit is the only source and power of true faith.
5. Our faith stands and our faith knows and our faith sees. These are inner spiritual activities (though not the works of our hands or deeds of the body). By faith, we stand, we know, and we see. Faith is living and active in us exactly because the source and power of faith is the living and active Spirit who bears witness in us by the word (Heb. 4:12). It cannot be otherwise.
6. Because the centre of Paul's preaching was Christ crucified, he also spoke about God ordaining this mystery before the world and God preparing these things for them that love Him. Not in or by itself, or as the centre of His preaching, but in connection with and for the sake of the preaching of Christ crucified in time.
7. By using the words "ordained before", "unto our glory" and "prepared", Paul instructs us that Christ crucified, as well as our faith purchased for us on the cross and by which alone we know what God has prepared for us, are after, in time, and historical, as well as absolutely and sovereignly determined, certain, fixed and caused by God alone, thereby excluding any and all external dependencies, conditions, or prerequisites.

Much more could be said from this passage alone, but faith is knowing what God has prepared for us, and to castigate the Reformed faith as if we say that faith is a condition when we only insist that it is the necessary means by which we know what God has prepared for us, is nothing but baseless slander and a shameless twisting of our confession. Believing the promises is how we receive the promises, and this activity of faith itself is part of what God has prepared for us. By accusing us of teaching faith to be a condition, when we insist that it is a necessary means, the hyper-Calvinists themselves disconnect it from the promises of God and from eternal unconditional election, and by accusing us of teaching faith to be a work of man because we say it is living and active, the hyper-Calvinists themselves disconnect it from the power of the living and active Spirit and make our activity stand in the wisdom of men. Paul spoke concerning such as those who deny the power of God at work in us (chiefly our faith by which power we overcome the world; I John 5:4): "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." (II Tim. 3:5)

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." (Gal. 6:14)

Consider the official teaching of the Reformed faith in Canons Head I:

Art 3. And that men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tidings to whom He will and at what time He pleaseth; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. ...

Art 4. The wrath of God abideth upon those who believe not this gospel. But such as receive it, and embrace Jesus the Saviour by a true and living faith, are by Him delivered from the wrath of God and from destruction, and have the gift of eternal life conferred upon them.

Notice it is men who believe (not Christ or the Spirit or God for us, or in us, or on our behalf instead of us) which is described as the activities of receiving and embracing, and we do not have the gift of eternal life and are not delivered from the wrath of God until we believe. These are the ABCs of the Gospel 101 which are being denied by those who are obsessed with pushing everything, including the application of salvation, into eternity past, and who pretend that man's believing activity by which he receives and embraces Christ is a work and a condition rather than the gift of God by the power of the Holy Spirit working in him. And they have the gall to boast of this wretched impious confusion as if it makes them holier or more orthodox or more humble or more God-glorifying while throwing at us the most vehement and despicable accusations that we deny the Gospel.

There is a sound reason why the Canons took this doctrine of our activity of faith unto salvation as their starting point (Art. 1 teaching the justice of God in condemning all mankind, and Art. 2 teaching the manifestation of the love of God in sending Jesus Christ to give life to all who believe). Having explained this first, then the Canons are able to take up the subject of eternal election in its proper place, to explain why some believe and others do not, in contrast to the conditional theology of the Arminians.

Calvin very harshly admonishes his readers when he begins to treat the subject of predestination, since it has to do with God's eternal counsel, so much of which is unimaginably far beyond our comprehension and has not been revealed to us:

First, then, let them remember that when they inquire into predestination they are penetrating the sacred precincts of divine wisdom. If anyone with carefree assurance breaks into this place, he will not succeed in satisfying his curiosity and he will enter a labyrinth from which he can find no exit. For it is not right for man unrestrainedly to search out things that the Lord has willed to be hid in himself, and to unfold from eternity itself the sublimest wisdom, which he would have us revere but not understand that through this also he should fill us with wonder. He has set forth by his Word the secrets of his will that he has decided to reveal to us. (Institutes 3.21.1)

Calvin's approach to this subject, as all others, is to approach only by the "pathway of faith" in Christ crucified as revealed in God's Word alone. He quotes Augustine:

"We have entered the pathway of faith," says Augustine, "let us hold steadfastly to it. It leads us to the King's chamber, in which are hid all the treasures of knowledge and wisdom. For the Lord Christ himself did not bear a grudge against his great and most select disciples when he said: 'I have ... many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now' (John 16:12). We must walk, we must advance, we must grow, that our hearts may be capable of those things which we cannot yet grasp. But if the Last Day finds us advancing, there we shall learn what we could not learn here." If this thought prevails with us, that the Word of the Lord is the sole way that can lead us in our search for all that is lawful to hold concerning him, and is the sole light to illumine our vision of all that we should see of him [i.e. by faith], it will readily keep and restrain us from all rashness. (Institutes 3.21.2)

Like brute beasts, the hyper-Calvinists charge into the throne room of God's eternal wisdom, not holding to the pathway of faith, not bridled by the revealed Word, and so rush headlong into a labyrinth of their own making, and present us with the rottenness they find there in their own imaginations as if it were God's own secret wisdom (Jude 1:10). From the wisdom of men, may the Lord deliver us, that our faith should stand in the power of the Spirit.

The Canons of Dordt concludes with practical application to keep us from this error, as applicable to the calumnies of modern hyper-Calvinists as it was to those of the Arminians:

... some whom such conduct by no means became, have violated all truth, equity, and charity, in wishing to persuade the public [of various slanders, accusations, false doctrines, and calumnies] and many other things of the same kind, which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul. Wherefore, this Synod of Dort, in the name of the Lord, conjures as many as piously call upon the name of our Savior Jesus Christ, to judge of the faith of the Reformed Churches, not from the calumnies, which, on every side, are heaped upon it; nor from the private expressions of a few among ancient and modern teachers, often dishonestly quoted, or corrupted, and wrested to a meaning quite foreign to their intention; but from the public confessions of the Churches themselves, and from the declaration of the orthodox doctrine, confirmed by the unanimous consent of all and each of the members of the whole Synod. Moreover, the Synod warns calumniators themselves, to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them, for bearing false witness against the confessions of so many Churches, for distressing the consciences of the weak; and for laboring to render suspected the society of the truly faithful. Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ, to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse, as in writing, to the glory of the Divine Name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language; and, to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the holy Scriptures; and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.