Chapter 6.2

An Introduction to Saving Faith

And the Critical Controversy Surrounding It

Table of Topics

A) The Result of Saving Faith: Eternal salvation

B) The Object of Saving Faith: Jesus Christ as Savior & Lord

C) The Debate Regarding Saving Faith: Fairism vs. Gracism

C.1) Empowering faith vs. saving faith

C.2) Fairism vs. gracism

C.3) Gracism preserves the core biblical doctrine of salvation by God’s grace rather than human works: Rom 11:5-6

C.4) Gracism preserves the God-ordained appearance of injustice in His plan of salvation: Rom 9:1-24

C.5) Gracism preserves the God-ordained appearance of “foolishness” in His plan of salvation: 1 Cor 1:17-2:5

C.6) Gracism preserves the God-ordained desire to guarantee salvation: Rom 4:16

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• Saving faith results in divine forgiveness from divine punishment.
• Saving faith possesses an understanding of the saving truths of the Gospel, including Jesus Christ is the only Savior and Lord.
• It is a grave error to confuse empowering faith which is a meritorious work of Christians, with saving faith that is solely the gift and work of God.
• The nature of saving faith is a serious matter. The fundamental question is this: Is saving faith ultimately a work of God or humans?
• Fairism is the popular belief that humans ultimately save themselves and determine their eternal destiny because they are capable of and responsible for saving faith, all of which makes God’s plan of salvation fair. The result is that salvation is no longer by God’s grace alone.
• Fairism makes Christianity just like all man-made world religions which teach that salvation is ultimately dependent on human works.
• Grace is the antithesis of fairness. The only way to make salvation fair is to make it by our works, which is ultimately what fairism does.
• Rather than salvation by grace, fairists believe in salvation by God’s generosity—He takes the little faith, humility, fear, repentance, etc. that we supposedly choose and He gives us a whole lot more in return.
• No one is ultimately saved because of something they do or don’t do, and likewise, no one is ultimately damned because of something they do or don’t do. God is ultimately responsible for a person’s salvation or damnation.
• Unfortunately for fairism, there is nothing “foolish” or offensive in its gospel, but both are characteristics of the real Gospel.

paper 18.5 in theological papers to saving faith chapters

A) The Result of Saving Faith: Eternal salvation

In essence, saving faith saves. Accordingly, the Apostle is clearly referring to saving faith when he writes:

For in the Gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by [saving] faith from first to last. (Rom 1:17)

This righteousness from God comes through [saving] faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. (Rom 3:22)

Therefore, since we have been justified through [saving] faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom we have gained access by [saving] faith into this grace in which we now stand. (Rom 5:1-2)

We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by [saving] faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our [saving] faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by [saving] faith in Christ and not by observing the law. (Gal 2:15-16)

The Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised [salvation], being given through [saving] faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this [saving] faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until [saving] faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by [saving] faith. Now that [saving] faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through [saving] faith in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:22-26)

For it is by grace you have been saved, through [saving] faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. (Eph 2:8-9; cf. Rom 9:30-32; Phil 3:8-9; Heb 11:7)

These Scriptures will suffice to show that there is a faith that humans experience that results in their divine forgiveness and salvation from divine punishment. Accordingly, we refer to this particular aspect of biblical faith as saving faith.

B) The Object of Saving Faith: Jesus Christ as Savior & Lord

What then is the object of this faith that saves? First, saving faith possesses an understanding of the saving truths of the Gospel, including the fact that Jesus Christ is the only sufficient Savior, and the only legitimate Lord. It is, in fact, the content of saving faith that makes it saving. Real faith in the purpose and deeds of George Washington will not save you, but the same faith in Christ will.

A correct understanding of God’s revelation of the Gospel is necessary for saving faith to exist. Consider someone who claims to believe that the King is their savior. However, upon interrogation, it becomes obvious that they are really and ultimately trusting in their own good works to earn God’s forgiveness. Again, their faith is false and incomplete, not real and saving.

This is why the Apostle Paul was so concerned about the Galatians, as he knew that if they trusted in something else other than Christ for their salvation, they would not be saved. Accordingly, he wrote:

You who are trying to be justified by law [trusting obedience to it] have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace [and fallen short of saving faith]. But by [saving] faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness [and salvation] for which we hope. (Gal 5:4-5)

Not only are the contents of saving faith correct, but its commitment to those facts is total. While a false faith may recognize, and sometimes even entertain the claims of Christ, they are not fully trusted, because neither the person’s thinking nor actions change.

For example, consider someone who claims to believe that Christ was God, but lives as if they are their own god, continually obeying their own desires instead of Christ’s commandments with little or no remorse. Such people have a knowledge of who Christ claimed to be, but have not fully accepted those claims. The Apostle described these very kind of people when he said of those whose, “minds and consciences are corrupted” [i.e. unregenerated] that, “They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny Him” (Titus 1:15-16). There is a lack of acceptance and trust in God by such people, that exposes their belief as something less than real or saving faith.

It is the acceptance of, and trust in, the claims of Christ that saves. And such real acceptance and trust affects both the way a person thinks and lives in relation to Christ. They no longer think they can save themselves or that their good deeds in any way earn them divine forgiveness. They have truly accepted their depravity and Christ’s gracious offer as Savior, and this is demonstrated by their commitment to relate to Christ as not only Savior, but Lord as well. The true beliefs of true believers result in a desire to please God, renounce sinful ways, and feel guilt and remorse when they don’t. ^[1]

While this is not the place for a full discussion of the contents of saving faith we see two items clearly involved when the Apostle says: “the word of [saving] faith we are proclaiming [is that] . . . if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:8-9). Therefore, saving faith includes believing in both the lordship ^[2] and physical resurrection of Christ. It is noteworthy that these are the very things that particularly liberal theologians attack, and yet they still want to be accepted as authentically Christian theologians. However, by denying the very things that the Apostle said saving faith must contain, there is no reason whatsoever that either they or we should have any confidence they deserve to be called Christian. ^[3]

Notice as well what a good, virtuous work saving faith is. Its vital ingredient is a sincere belief in the rightful lordship of Jesus Christ over our lives. This requires, at the very least, for an unbeliever to have a great deal of repentance, humility, and reverence toward God. And this is why we insist and demonstrate in the next chapter that these virtuous, meritorious, good works that are the essence of saving faith must be solely the work of God in us, or we truly are saved by our own meritorious good works. Those who gut saving faith of its virtue in order to claim saving faith is our work, but we are not saved by our works, not only contradict themselves, but the Bible as well. ^[4]

While we will point out elsewhere that saving faith is a belief that has certainty, ^[5] it is not the amount of certainty that distinguishes it from other kinds of faith. For example, it would be difficult to clearly distinguish the strength of a Christian’s certainty in the historical facts concerning Jesus Christ, from that of a non-Christian in the same things. Can we say that we have a more certain belief in the historical fact that Christ “was raised on the third day,” (1 Cor 15:4) than a multitude of merely professing Christians who celebrate that event every Easter? Possibly, but it seems more accurate to say that the born again Christian’s faith in Christ is greater in scope, rather than depth. Because the resurrection has more meaning for us than simply a historical event, we believe more things about the resurrection. In other words, it’s not that we really believe in the King more than others, but more precisely that we believe in more things about the King, things that save us.

Pastoral Practices

• When you preach the Gospel, are you both honest and biblical about the fact that someone who truly becomes a Christian will accept Christ as their Lord to rule them and not just their Savior to forgive them? Some are concerned that if we preach this we are diluting salvation by grace. This is not so. The truth is that we are saved only by the divine gift of God’s grace, but the spiritual regeneration that accompanies all real conversions will result in a desire for, and growing consistency in Christ being our Lord. Do not divide the King when you preach Jesus. He is both Savior and Lord. This is what the Apostle is saying in Romans 10:8-10.

For further discussion see John MacArthur’s, The Gospel According to Jesus (Zondervan, 1994) and The Gospel According to the Apostles (Word, 2000).

C) The Debate Regarding Saving Faith: Fairism vs. Gracism

C.1) Empowering faith vs. saving faith

In chapter 6.7 we will argue that the Scriptures speak of an empowering faith by which the regenerated Christian obeys God’s commands. Empowering faith has the following attributes: 1) It is something regenerated, now spiritually alive, new creation Christians have the ability and therefore the responsibility to choose, and 2) It is something for which they are rewarded for, because it is a meritorious work on their part, and 3) It is the kind of faith that can grow as we mature in our Christian faith and experience.

On the other hand, saving faith is a gift from God and not a human work (cf. Eph 2:8-9; Phil 1:29; Rom. 4:16; John 6:44; Acts 3:16; 16:14; 18:27; 1 Pet. 1:21; Heb 12:2). The difference between saving and empowering faith can be explained by noticing that the former is worked in spiritually dead and dumb humans (cf. Eph 2:1; 1 Cor 2:14), while the latter is a work of spiritually regenerated believers.

The object of saving faith is the Gospel, and may not include many of the doctrines and commands of Scripture. However, while the doctrines of the Gospel are certainly included in empowering faith, it encompasses a growing number of biblical doctrines and commands as the believer grows.

Saving faith is the first spiritual or biblical faith we have, and it is completely a work of the grace of God. In this aspect it is much like the miracle faith we discuss in chapter 6.8 which is also completely the gift and work of God and just as supernatural as the miracle such faith produces. As we will demonstrate regarding miracle faith, humans are neither able nor responsible to produce it and it is solely the work of God so that only He gets the credit for a miracle. Likewise, unregenerated humans are not capable of the moral virtues toward God required for saving faith and therefore it too is solely the work of God in us for which He alone gets the credit.

However, after being given saving faith and the spiritual regeneration that causes it, we are then enabled for empowering faith which we are therefore responsible and rewarded for. Our salvation is a gift of God’s grace, not a reward for something we’ve done, which is why saving faith and empowering faith can and should be carefully distinguished.

Accordingly, the nature of these different workings of faith (i.e. saving vs. empowering) are so different they deserve the different names and distinctions we give them. Those who claim that all faith toward God works the same, ignore these facts. Therefore, it is a grave error to confuse empowering faith which is a meritorious work of Christians, with saving faith that is solely the gift and work of God.

This distinction must be made for many reasons, but the greatest is the real danger of making our salvation ultimately a human work, rather than by God’s work, and therefore by God’s grace alone. If we claim merely physically born humans are able, and therefore ultimately responsible, to produce the saving faith necessary to be saved, then we have violated the fundamental Protestant Reformation doctrine of salvation by God’s grace alone. Along these lines, Professor Michael Horton relates:

The Reformation was not a crusade against indulgences, papal infallibility, or rituals. . . . No, the real issue was that the [Roman] church would simply not give in to Paul’s affirmation: “It [salvation] does not therefore depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (Rom 9:16).

Accordingly, the nature of saving faith is a serious matter. The fundamental question is this: Is saving faith ultimately a work of God or humans? Who is ultimately responsible for saving faith and who ultimately deserves the credit for it? The answer to these questions is the difference between a salvation that is by God’s grace and work, or one that ultimately depends on a human work. And the latter is a perversion of the Gospel of grace that the Apostles warned us about.

C.2) Fairism vs. Gracism

Yet, fairism (i.e. Arminianism, synergism) claims that saving faith is ultimately a human work, something for which we are capable of apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit. This saving work that humans are supposedly naturally capable of, and therefore ultimately responsible for, is usually described as putting faith in Christ, or accepting Christ. In other words, God’s saving grace is ultimately “triggered” or caused because of some act or decision of the sinner such as humbling themselves, repenting, fearing God, etc. As J. I. Packer relates:

In Arminianism [fairism] there resides a tendency [rather a logical inevitability] to depict faith as the human work upon which the pardon of sin depends on-as, in fact, man’s contribution to his own salvation. This would be in effect a Protestant revival of the doctrine of human merit. ^[6]

Accordingly, in fairism, the reason some people are saved and others are not, ultimately depends on what those people do or do not do. In fairism it is not God who chooses who goes to Heaven or Hell, but humans justly and ultimately decide their own eternal destiny. What makes this view attractive is that it makes God’s plan of salvation fair from a human perspective, thus explaining our label for it: fairism. The desire to make God’s plan of salvation fair in our eyes has been a common stumbling block throughout Church history. ^[7]

Fairism has been promoted from the days of Pelagius (ca. AD 354 – ca. 420), and later by Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), John Wesley (1703-1791), and Charles Finney (1792-1875), along with a multitude of adherents in the Church today. The theological term for fairism is synergism referring to the belief that the act of saving faith is a cooperative effort with the work and grace of God to produce salvation such that we are ultimately saved by both ourselves and God. Thus the term synergism.

Nonetheless, we prefer the word fairism because if, in fact, a teaching is biblical, as both Arminians and Calvinists claim, then no mere man should get credit for it, whether they be Jacobus Arminius or John Calvin (1509-1564). In addition, the term reflects what seems to be the foundational principle, motivation, and most attractive aspect of all forms of historical Arminianism and synergism: the attempt to make God’s plan of salvation seem fair to humans. While synergists imply that salvation is a result of both God and human works, it ultimately ends up claiming that the human work is the decisive factor.

And we believe it is because of an understandable desire to avoid accusations that God is unjust, that fairists look for biblical support for their doctrines. These doctrines include: 1) All humans are capable, without any unique or special work of God on their behalf, to believe on Christ in a saving way, 2) Therefore, humans are ultimately responsible for both their salvation or damnation, and 3) Therefore, God’s predestined choice of who would be saved was actually made conditionally on the basis of God foreseeing the person doing something, including exercising saving faith and choosing Christ.

Common, and logically consistent principles of fairism include: 1) Because our salvation was ultimately dependent on exercising our free will to choose Christ, we also have the freedom and ability to afterwards deny Christ, thus losing our salvation after having it. This denial of a “once saved always saved” view is particularly prevalent among Wesleyan and Pentecostal groups. 2) People can be saved somehow apart from the preaching of the Gospel, because it is obvious that not all humans throughout history have had an opportunity to hear the Gospel, and it would therefore make God’s plan of salvation unfair to make it contingent on this. This is known as inclusivism and pluralism which we discuss further in section 6.7.B, and has included such adherents as Billy Graham and C. S. Lewis.

Unfortunately, by making a person’s salvation or condemnation ultimately dependent on something people do, and therefore fair, fairism makes Christianity just like all man-made world religions which teach that God’s decision on who will or will not be saved is ultimately dependent on human works. ^[8] Which is the only way a plan of salvation could be fair, instead of by grace.

As we discuss further elsewhere, fairism is unfortunately all too common in American Christianity. ^[9] We say, “unfortunately” because, as the Protestant theologian R. B. Kuiper (1886-1966) pointed out some time ago, fairist doctrines are not only a denial of the central doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, but of the biblical doctrine that salvation is ultimately to be understood as something we possess completely by God’s grace and work:

If the doctrine of salvation by grace is the system of truth taught in Holy Scripture, it must be admitted that few preachers indeed declare the whole Word of God. Modernism is thoroughly Pelagian [i.e. believing humans are capable of saving faith], and Pelagianism is pagan. Paganism, Pelagianism, and present-day religious liberalism are alike autosoteric [humans ultimately save themselves] in their teaching.

And, exceedingly sad to say, most of that which styles itself fundamentalist preaching also does great violence to the Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace. Almost all of American Fundamentalism is Arminian, and Arminianism [i.e. fairism] is a compromise with autosoterism. The great majority of fundamentalist preachers, while stressing the precious truth that the death of Christ was a vicarious sacrifice for the sin of man, deny unconditional election; teach that Christ’s death merely made salvation possible for all, but certain for none; and insist that [saving] faith, instead of being a fruit of the new birth, is the means by which regeneration is effected, thus making [saving] faith an act of unregenerate man’s free volition rather than a gift of the sovereign Spirit of God.

In a word, according to prevalent fundamentalist preaching, God merely gives man a chance to be saved, and it is for the individual to grasp the opportunity and make his salvation actual. But thus salvation is made [ultimately] dependent on the will of man. ^[10]

In our opinion, then, rather than salvation by grace, fairists believe in salvation by God’s generosity—He takes the little faith, humility, fear, repentance, etc. that we supposedly freely choose to exercise toward Him and He gives us a whole lot more in return. Which is again why we claim the central tenets of fairism undermine the biblical teaching that salvation is by God’s grace and works alone, and to His credit alone.

Consequently, gracism is our word for what is commonly known as Calvinism, Reformed theology, monergism, or “the doctrines of grace.” We prefer this word because, as noted, we have an aversion to naming something claiming to be biblical after a mere human. In addition, we do not believe everything Calvin taught, and we desire to believe and follow Christ and the Bible, not Calvin. Along these lines Jonathan Edwards wrote: “I should not take it amiss, to be called a Calvinist, though I utterly disclaim a dependence on Calvin, or believing the doctrines which I hold, because he believed and taught them.” ^[11]

We prefer the label of gracism as well because: 1) such labels as Arminians and Calvinists can easily become cuss words among Christians, and more positive labels like gracism can help to avoid this, and 3) we believe the term gracism more obviously reflects the core of our position. Accordingly, the central principle and motivation of gracism is to maintain the NT claim that salvation is ultimately by God’s unconditional grace and supernatural works, not any human decision, merit, or works at all. Accordingly, gracism, understandably, and we believe correctly, sees fairism as a logical denial that salvation is ultimately dependent on God’s grace and works.

C.3) Gracism preserves the core biblical doctrine of salvation by God’s grace rather than human works: Rom 11:5-6

The sincere and honest Christian must decide. Is our salvation ultimately dependent on what God does, making it by unmerited grace, or is our salvation ultimately dependent on what we do, thereby making saving grace conditional on a human work, which would certainly seem fair, but is no longer grace? The Apostle writes:

[A]t the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. (Rom 11:5-6)

Abandoning the logic of the Apostle, fairists often add to the confusion by claiming that we need not decide between a salvation ultimately by humans works or divine grace as both are simultaneously or synergistically true. As we demonstrate elsewhere, such a contradictory notion is neither true, biblical, nor necessary. ^[12]

We will repeat. The sincere and honest Christian must decide. Is our salvation ultimately dependent on what God does, making it by unmerited grace, or is our salvation ultimately dependent on what we do, thereby making saving grace conditional on a human work, which would certainly seem fair, but is no longer grace? Is God’s plan of salvation based on fairness or grace, because it will not be both? Grace is the antithesis of fairness. The only way to make God’s plan of salvation fair is to make it by our works, which is ultimately what fairism does.

Speaking of an ancient version of fairism called Pelagianism, Augustine (354-430) wrote:

It follows, therefore, that without any virtue of our own, we receive the gift of [saving] faith, from which the rest of salvation flows — although according to the Pelagians, we obtain salvation because of our virtue [e.g. humility, repentance, etc.]. If, however, they insist on denying that faith is freely given to us, what is the meaning of the apostle’s words: ‘You are saved by grace through faith and this is not from yourselves’ (Eph 2:8)?

And if they argue that faith is bestowed as a reward for virtue, not as a free gift, what then becomes of another saying of the apostle: ‘To you it is given on the behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake’ (Phil.1:29)? The apostle’s testimony makes each of these a gift — both that a person believes in Christ, and that he suffers for Christ’s sake.

These Pelagians, however, attribute faith to free will, in such a way as to make it seem that grace is given to faith not as a free gift, but as a debt. Thus grace ceases to be grace any longer. How can something be grace if it is not freely given? ^[13]

These are critical questions. Accordingly, the highly respected and influential Puritan theologian John Owen (1616-1683) rightly warned fairists when he wrote:

To say that we are able by our own efforts to think good thoughts or give God spiritual obedience before we are spiritually regenerate is to overthrow the gospel and the faith of the universal church in all ages.

To those who think otherwise, or think the Bible is not clear on such issues, Martin Luther (1483-1546) wrote among many other things on this subject: “If any man ascribes to salvation even the very least to the free will of man, he knows nothing of grace, and he has not learned Jesus Christ rightly.” ^[14] Elsewhere he preached: “So utterly does grace refuse to allow any particle or power of ‘free will’ to stand beside it!” ^[15]

Accordingly, Luther also wrote:

[I]t is not irreligious, idle, or superfluous, but in the highest degree wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know whether or not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation. Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us; our aim is, simply, to investigate what ability [unregenerated] ‘free-will’ has, in what respect it is the subject of Divine action as it stands related to the grace of God. ^[16]

In addition, Luther wrote:

God has surely promised His grace to the humbled . . . But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realizes that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsel, pleasure and is the work of Another—God alone. As long as he is persuaded that he can make even the smallest contribution to his salvation, he remains self-confident and does not utterly despair of himself, and so is not humbled before God . . .

So these truths are published for sake of the [unsaved] elect, that they may be humbled and brought down to nothing, and so saved. The rest of men resist this humiliation; indeed, they condemn the teaching of self-despair; they want a little something left that they can do for themselves. Secretly they continue proud, and enemies of the grace of God. ^[17]

“They want a little something left that they can do for themselves.” A very apt description of fairism.

And Luther’s fear of false conversions was especially illustrated under the “evangelistic” preaching of Charles Finney (1792-1875), who denied that God needed to grant the sinner supernatural regeneration before they could exercise saving faith. Accordingly, the historical results of the “Second Great Awakening” in America led by Finney were quite different from the “First Great Awakening” led by Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) and George Whitefield (1714-1770) who preached the New Birth. The “First Awakening” transformed people and our culture, the second produced a multitude of false Christians and Christianities (cults). ^[18] Accordingly Church historian Thomas Nettles relates:

In his later years Finney realized that he had placed too little emphasis on the “necessity of divine influence upon the hearts of sinners. I am confident that I have sometimes erred in this respect myself,” and instead emphasized “the natural ability of sinners to the neglect of showing them the nature and extent of their dependence upon the grace of God and influence of his Spirit.”

In accordance with his own observation, churches affected by his revivals became shallow spiritually [because people were not actually converted by his ministry?]. . . Ministers formerly open to his approach refused to admit him to preach . . . ^[19]

Fairism teaches that humans ultimately decide their own salvation, and therefore ultimately can save themselves, and have the ability to possess and exercise saving faith without supernatural regeneration. Accordingly, many have warned that it is in danger of being a “different gospel” (Gal 1:6) which the Apostle warned ultimately depends on human works. For our part, we do not believe this, as the “different gospel” that the Apostle speaks of would not save anyone. Many people who believe in fairism are saved and have led others to salvation. Accordingly, we do not completely agree with the following from Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). But there are many things in the following quote that we believe are true and worth pondering:

I know there are many that make as though this controversy [between gracism and fairism] was of no great importance; that it is chiefly a matter of nice speculation, depending on certain subtle distinctions, which many that make use of them do not understand themselves; and that the difference is not of such consequence as to be worth the being zealous about; and that more hurt is done by raising disputes about it than good. . . .

This I think to be of great importance, at least in application to ourselves; and that for the following reasons. The Scripture treats of this doctrine, as a doctrine of very great importance. That there is a certain doctrine of justification by faith, in opposition to justification by the works of the law, that the Apostle Paul insists upon as of the greatest importance, none will deny; because there is nothing in the Bible more apparent. The apostle, under the infallible conduct of the Spirit of God, thought it worth his most strenuous and zealous disputing about and defending.

He speaks of the contrary doctrine as fatal and ruinous to the souls of men . . . He speaks of it as subversive of the gospel of Christ, and calls it another gospel, and says concerning it, if any one, “though an angel from heaven, preach it, let him be accursed.”

The adverse scheme [fairism, Arminianism, synergism] lays another foundation of man’s salvation than God hath laid. . . . It takes away Christ out of the place of the bottom stone, and puts in men’s own virtue in the room of him so that Christ himself in the affair of distinguishing, actual salvation, is laid upon this foundation.

And the foundation being so different, I leave it to everyone to judge whether the difference between the two schemes consists only in punctilios of small consequence. The foundations being contrary, makes the whole scheme exceeding diverse and opposite; the one is a gospel scheme, the other a legal one. . . .

I am sensible the divines of that side [i.e. fairism, Arminianism, synergism] entirely disclaim the Popish [Roman Catholic] doctrine of merit; and are free to speak of our utter unworthiness, and the great imperfection of all our services; but after all, [in their view] it is our virtue [e.g. humility, repentance, fear of God, etc.], imperfect as it is, that recommends men to God, by which good men [at least better than those who do not get saved] come to have a saving interest in Christ, and God’s favor, rather than others; and these things are bestowed in testimony of God’s respect to their goodness [i.e. humility, repentance, fear of God, etc.]. So that whether they [fairists] will allow the term “merit” or no, yet they hold, that we are accepted by our own merit. . . .

It is no gospel at all; it is law; it is no covenant of grace, but of works: it is not an evangelical, but a legal doctrine. The contrary scheme of justification [i.e. fairism] derogates much from the honor of God and the Mediator. I have already shown how it diminishes the glory of the Mediator, in ascribing that to man’s virtue and goodness [i.e. humility, repentance, fear of God], which belongs alone to his worthiness and righteousness. . .

It has also been already shown how it diminishes the glory of divine grace (which is the attribute God hath especially set himself to glorify in the work of redemption); and so that it greatly diminishes the obligation to gratitude in the sinner that is saved; yea, that in the sense of the apostle, it makes void the distinguishing grace of the gospel. . . .

It diminishes the glory of the grace of God and the Redeemer, and proportionably magnifies man; it makes him something before God when indeed he is nothing; it makes the goodness of fallen man to be something, which I have shown is nothing.

I know that those we oppose do acknowledge that the price is very disproportionate to the benefit bestowed; and say, that God’s grace is wonderfully manifested in accepting so little virtue [i.e. humility, repentance, fear of God], and bestowing so glorious a reward for such imperfect righteousness. But seeing we are such infinitely sinful and abominable creatures in God’s sight, and by our infinite guilt have brought ourselves into such wretched and deplorable circumstances, and all our righteousnesses are nothing, and ten thousand times worse than nothing (if God looks upon them as they be in themselves), is it not immensely more worthy of the infinite majesty and glory of God to deliver and make happy such poor, filthy worms, such wretched vagabonds and captives, without any money or price [contribution] of theirs, or any manner of expectation of any excellency or virtue in them, in any wise to recommend them?

Will it not betray a foolish, exalting opinion of ourselves, and a mean one of God, to have a thought of offering anything of ours, to recommend us to the favor of being brought from wallowing like filthy swine, in the mire of our sins, and from the enmity and misery of devils in the lowest hell, to the state of God’s dear children, in the everlasting arms of his love, in heavenly glory; or to imagine that that is the constitution of God, that we should bring our filthy rags, and offer them to him as the price of this”? ^[20]

Anyone wishing to promote fairism in even its most subtle shades, needs to refute Jonathan Edwards.

C.4) Gracism preserves the God-ordained appearance of injustice in His plan of salvation: Rom 9:1-24

Once again, the greatest objection to gracism is that it makes God look unjust. Accordingly, both fairists and gracists commonly insist that humans are ultimately responsible for their damnation. This accords well with fairism and its belief that humans are ultimately responsible for their salvation. But many gracists have failed to see both the logical and biblical contradictions such a claim makes, and it would seem at this point they have also fallen into the desire to make God’s plan for humanity fair in our eyes.

The issue of who is ultimately responsible for a person’s damnation is, in one sense, far beyond the scope of a discussion on the nature of saving faith. However, because it is the apparent injustice of claiming that saving faith and all the works required for salvation are the work of God alone, that in a defense of this, the ramifications of that apparent injustice need to be discussed. This includes what we believe to be a necessary claim that God is ultimately responsible for the damnation of a person.

And if it is agreed that the appearance of unfairness in God’s actions are not a determining factor in what we are to believe about Him, but rather interpreting Scripture in a logically consistent manner as God has created both us and truth, then there should be no objections to this.

Has God made humans able and responsible to save themselves from damnation? If not, then they are not ultimately responsible for either their salvation or damnation. In other words, no one is ultimately saved because of something they do or don’t do, and likewise, no one is ultimately damned because of something they do or don’t do. God is ultimately responsible for a person’s salvation or damnation.

Fairism insists that the just reason that God eternally condemns people is because they do not do something they are able and therefore responsible to do (repent, believe, etc.). This is another attempt to make God’s plan for humanity fair in the eyes of humans. Fairists are right to maintain the logical consistency between human ability and responsibility. If humans are able to do something, then they would logically be responsible for it.

However, Scripture is clear that unregenerated humans are not capable of any acts that will save them including saving faith. And if they are not able to save themselves, then they are not responsible to do so either. God is ultimately responsible for the eternal destiny of every human being. God’s plan for humanity is just because He is God, not because humans are able to determine or choose their own eternal destiny.

Nonetheless, the accusation that gracism is unjust is a repeated and important point for fairists. Accordingly, Dave Hunt has repeatedly made the point:

Isn’t Calvinism [e.g. gracism] guilty of both absurdity and injustice by declaring man to be incapable of repentance and faith, then condemning him for failing to repent and believe? . . . [A] major problem with Calvinism [e.g. gracism] [is] its denial of God’s infinite love for all. . . . not showing mercy to all when all are equally guilty is a perversion of justice. . . . This fact poses a major problem for Calvinism [e.g. gracism]. ^[21]

In answer, Luther wrote in his foundational treatise on the issue, The Bondage of the Will:

Doubtless, it gives the greatest possible offense to common sense or natural reason, that God, who is proclaimed as being full of mercy and goodness, and so on, should of His own mere will abandon, harden and damn men. . . . It seems a sinful, cruel, intolerable thought to think of God; and it is this that has been a stumbling block to so many great men down the ages. . . . This is why so much toil and trouble has been devoted to clearing the goodness of God, and throwing the blame on man’s will. ^[22]

While this is not the place for a full discussion of these monumental issues, we will briefly reply with the following. First, the human assumption that God’s plan of salvation will always appear just in our eyes, afflicts us with a skewed bias that will cause us to misinterpret Scripture, and therefore misunderstand God.

Accordingly, an unbiased interpretation of Romans 9:1-23 teaches us that God’s plan of salvation is not fair. Here is one of Scripture’s clearest and most fundamental descriptions of God’s plan of salvation, and the Apostle intends to ensure that we understand God’s plan is unfair, and not according to human free will, but God’s free will, so that it can truly be by His grace and for His glory. The Apostle writes:

Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. ¹¹ Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand [which is to glorify Himself, cf. vs. 22-23]: ¹² not by works [or anything a person can do] but by Him Who calls [i.e. chooses]—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” ¹³ Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What then shall we say? Is God unjust [because Jacob’s and Esau’s eternal destinies were chosen apart from anything they had done]? Not at all! ¹⁵ For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” ¹⁶ It [eternal salvation] does not, therefore, depend on man’s will desire [thelontos: will] or effort [action], but on God’s mercy [and whom He chooses to treat with mercy].

¹⁷ For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the Earth [through his judgement].” ¹⁸ Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden. ^[23]

Paul is clearly intending to teach that the damnation or salvation of individuals like Jacob and Esau has nothing to do with whether they have “done anything good or bad” or because of their “desire or effort.” The eternal destiny of humans is ultimately determined by whether or not “the Potter” makes them “for noble purposes” or dishonorable “use.” In essence, humans are not able to do anything to save themselves, and they therefore are not responsible to do so. Likewise, if humans are not able to do anything to escape damnation, then the logical and God-intended conclusion is that they are not ultimately responsible for their damnation. Only God can rescue them from it.

This is all “in order that God’s purpose in election might stand” which is that a human’s salvation would “not [be] by works but by Him Who calls” (11-12) so that “God” could “show His wrath and make His power known” and “make the riches of His glory known” (22-23).

In other words, a person’s salvation ultimately depends on a decision God makes with His free will, not a decision a human makes with some supposed free will they have. ^[24] Likewise, and unavoidably following this, a person’s damnation ultimately depends on a decision God makes with His free will, not a decision a human makes with some supposed free will they have.

And the sovereignty of the Creator, reflected in His absolute and unconditional rule over our eternal destiny, displays the glory of Who God is in relation to who we are. A display that has always been desperately needed because of the stubborn bent in the world, the flesh, and the devil to exalt man at the expense of exalting God. The Apostle finally puts man in his proper place and even Christians fight against it.

Against fairism, the Apostle anticipates that those reading Romans 9 will say, “God [is] unjust” (v. 14). The Apostle’s answer is not to correct this impression and make God’s plan of salvation fair in our eyes, but rather He asserts God’s sovereign right to do whatever He wants, including the fact that “God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy [and saves them by His grace], and He hardens whom He wants to harden [and damns them by His justice] (v. 18). Therefore, the question of who does or does not get saved “does not, therefore, [ultimately] depend on man’s desire [free will choice] or effort [action or works], but on God’s mercy [and desire, works, and choice]” (v. 16).

Likewise, in anticipation of someone understanding the Apostle correctly, he writes: “One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists His will?” (v. 19). In other words, the Apostle is clearly teaching in Romans 9 that God, not humans, are ultimately responsible for whether someone is saved or damned. God is ultimately the one Who decides a person’s eternal destiny, and His decision “does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but [simply and only] on God’s mercy” (v. 16). This being what the Apostle is communicating, the question arises, “Then why does God still blame us?” (v. 19) or “How can God justly hold the damned responsible if their salvation or damnation ultimately depends on a choice He makes, instead of one they make?”

At this point, fairists answer in all sorts of ways to maintain a human sense of justice. Commonly they claim that Romans 9 is not speaking about personal salvation. Or they simply contend that Scripture teaches that both God and humans are ultimately responsible for salvation and damnation and that this obvious contradiction of both logic and salvation by grace is somehow reconciled in the mind of God but not suppose to be apparent to us. ^[25]

But this is not how the Apostle answers the question, “How can God justly hold the damned responsible if their salvation or damnation ultimately depends on a choice He makes?” First, the Apostle never adopts the postmodern view that God intends to give us a revelation of contradictions that we are supposed to put our faith in. He doesn’t say something like, “I know I sound contradictory but this is all a mystery that we are not supposed to understand but still believe even if we cannot reconcile it.” On the contrary, he answers the question in a way that is completely consistent with the claims he has already made regarding the unconditional predestination of a person’s eternal destiny by God (cf. vs. 22-24).

Secondly, the Apostle never asserts with the fairists that humans are justly condemned because they were able to make choices that they chose not to make. The Apostle upholds his claim that people are condemned ultimately because of a sovereign, free choice God makes.

John Stott summarizes this section of Romans 9 in this way:

If salvation is due entirely to God’s will (which it is, as stated twice in verse 15 and twice more in verse 18), and if we do not resist his will (which we do not, and indeed could not), one of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?’ In other words, is it fair of God to hold us accountable to him, when he makes the decisions? ^[26]

Instead of inventing doctrines that would appeal to our sense of justice, or the postmodern age, the Apostle answers with a series of rhetorical questions with obvious answers:

Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? [no one] “Shall what is formed say to Him Who formed it, ‘Why did You make me like this?’” [No, we should not] Does not the Potter have the right to create ^[27] out of the same lump of clay some pottery [humans] for honorable purposes and some for dishonorable ^[28] use? [Absolutely]

What if God, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath—created ^[29] for destruction [in Hell]? [Then we would have to humbly and worshipfully accept His choice and admit He is God and we are not].

What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He created in advance [predestined] for glory [Then the objects of mercy should be eternally humbled and grateful because they did not receive such grace because of something they did or did not do.] (vs. 20-23)

Paul’s language in verse 20 is probably taken from Isaiah 45:9 where God says:

Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker. Does a clay pot argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, ‘Stop, you’re doing it wrong!’ Does the pot exclaim, ‘How clumsy can you be?’ ^[30]

We are on holy ground here. There is a real danger that if we do not interpret Romans 9 correctly, that we will find ourselves disrespectfully talking back to God. The real difficulty of properly interpreting Romans 9 is not intellectual, but emotional. Paul’s statements are simple, but they are offensive. The truth of this passage is intended to strike us to the core, and humble us like no other before the Almighty purposes, power, and rights of our Creator, and we are tempted to resist that, and come up with a more comfortable interpretation of what Paul is saying so that all of God fits in this more attractive box we label only love.

God’s plan of salvation does not ultimately “depend on man’s desire or effort” or choice, but on God’s. Because Scripture is clear that salvation is by God’s grace and works alone, and not human works, even fairists will agree on some level that people are not ultimately saved because of something they do. But fairists will not accept the logical and corresponding conclusion that the Apostle is teaching in Romans 9: Not only is salvation not ultimately dependent on what humans do or don’t do, but neither is their damnation ultimately dependent on what humans do or don’t do.

“The Potter has the right to create out of the same lump of clay some pottery [humans] for honorable purposes and some for dishonorable use” and He has “created,” some people to be “objects of His wrath,” and He has “created in advance” others to be “objects of His mercy.” He did this “to show His wrath and make His power known” and “to make the riches of His glory known,” not to make humans think God is fair (cf. Rom 9:21-23). Notice that the Apostle’s emphasis is that people were purposely “created in advance” by God in these ways, not that they became or made themselves these things. ^[31]

As the Apostle Peter put it, for “those who do not believe,” Christ is “a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” However, the ultimate reason they “do not believe” and therefore “stumble” is “because they disobey the message—which is also what they were [pre]destined [by God] for” (1 Pet 2:7-8). The Apostles Paul and Peter are agreed. God predestined some to believe the message of the Gospel and be saved, and He predestined others to disobey the message, stumble over it, and be damned. And because God chooses to only save some, and not all, this offends our sense of justice.

Accordingly, the Apostle concludes his extensive arguments in Romans chapters 9-11 regarding God’s plan of salvation by grace with an astounding, very God-centered, human-humbling, and unfair statement: “God has bound [sungkleio: “confine, imprison” ^[32]] all men over to disobedience” (Rom 11:32). ^[33] Read that biblical statement again and do not dilute its meaning, nor ignore its importance in accurately understanding God’s ultimate plan for humanity. “God has bound all men over to disobedience,” and therefore, God is ultimately responsible for humanity’s condemned state because it is part of His ultimate plan.

Accordingly, despite strong human aversion to the contrary, and as an unavoidable consequence to being ultimately responsible for anyone’s salvation, God is ultimately responsible for a human’s damnation, because He chooses to leave them spiritually dead.

The reason “God has bound all men over to disobedience” is “so that” He may be glorified by choosing to “have mercy” on any one of them. ^[34] Humanity’s God-ordained slavery to sin allows all credit and glory for their rescue to belong to God because their salvation is completely dependent upon Him. However, this imposed inability to save ourselves also makes anyone’s eventual damnation ultimately God’s responsibility as well. If He has decided to take ultimate responsibility and credit for our salvation then He has decided to take ultimate responsibility for our damnation. And this is precisely what the Apostle says in Romans 9 when he concludes:

What if God, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath—prepared [and predestined] for destruction? ²³ What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared [and predestined] in advance for glory. (Rom 9:22-23)

God’s choice to create and choose someone to be an “object of His wrath” serves to “show His wrath and make His power known.” Likewise, His choice to create and choose someone to be an “object of His mercy” serves to “make the riches of His glory known.” Accordingly, both choices equally glorify Him which is the purpose for all the decisions and plans of God.

If you don’t like the idea of God intentionally predestining human beings for damnation, then what about His mere foreknowledge? God knew that when He created humans and Hell that most of the former would end up in the latter. This is regardless of how you want to view God’s plan, and so this nonsense about God not being ultimately responsible for a person’s eternal destiny whether in Heaven or Hell needs to stop if we are to correctly honor and reverence our Creator. All of this is, of course, precisely what the Apostle desires to teach in Romans 9-11 and many are in danger of letting their human-centeredness create a god in their own image to worship, instead of the real God.

Humanity’s lack of ultimate responsibility for both their salvation or “disobedience” (Rom 11:32), and therefore their eternal destiny, is radically unfair in human eyes. But as we have discussed thoroughly elsewhere, when God decided to save only some, and even those only by unconditional grace, He therefore decided the foundation of His plan for humanity would not be a human sense of fairness, but a display of the glory of God’s grace. Grace is never fair.

The only way to make God’s plan of salvation just and fair from a human perspective is to make it ultimately by human works instead of God’s unconditional grace. This is because, by definition, grace is never earned. If you add a condition to grace that humans can take credit for (e.g. saving faith, repentance, etc.) then it is no longer grace (cf. Rom 4:4-5; 11:5-6). And grace is never fair, being undeserved and therefore unjust. “Mercy triumphs over justice” (James 2:13). ^[35] Accordingly, the Apostle said:

[A]t the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. (Rom 11:5-6)

Obviously the most unjust thing the Apostle is saying is that humans are not ultimately condemned because of something they do or do not do (e.g. Esau, Rom 9:10-16). And while fairists might concede that God would be just if He condemned everyone, they seem to think that the fact that He saves some, obligates Him to give all an equal opportunity for salvation. Which is why fairists want to conclude that God’s decision for salvation or condemnation was based on something the person did. But then, salvation is no longer by grace.

All of the apparent injustices in God’s plan of salvation are the intentional and unavoidable result of God deciding to make His plan of salvation ultimately based on His undeserved grace instead of a work that humans would do. When God decided that both eternal salvation and damnation would ultimately be His responsibility and by His free choice, grace, and works, instead of our responsibility by our free choice, merits, and works, He therefore decided that it would not be fair from a human perspective.

Again, grace is never fair. And if we agree with the clear biblical teaching that salvation is by God’s grace, than it must ultimately be by God’s free choice and supernatural work, rather than a human’s free choice and natural work. The biblical view of God’s plan of salvation is gracism, not fairism. ^[36]

Gracism honestly admits that its view is incompatible with fairness, and that to hold both perspectives of God’s plan of salvation would be contradictory and therefore, not true. Fairism, on the other hand, refuses to make such a concession, claiming that it can maintain that God’s plan for humanity is ultimately fair in our eyes, conditional on something we do, but also accurately described as by God’s grace and works. However, what happens in the process is that the true nature of God’s grace is necessarily diluted to make room for justice. Or a more postmodern view of truth is promoted which claims that biblical truth can contain apparent contradictions.

Those who would attempt to make God’s plan of salvation fair by arguing humans are ultimately or even partly responsible for their damnation or salvation because of what they do or don’t do, need to recognize that there are several things about God’s plan of salvation that are not fair from a human perspective. These include:

1) Creating billions of humans whom God knew in His perfect foreknowledge would not be saved, and would eventually and inevitably suffer the eternal torments of Hell; 2) Making the penalty for our sinfulness something as horrible as the conscious eternal torments of Hell; 3) Punishing children for the sins of their fathers such that we are born spiritually dead, separated from God, with a sinful nature, and declared guilty at birth because of Adam’s sin (cf. Exod 20:5; Rom 5:12-19); and 4) Condemning whole races and nations of people for whom we have no biblical or historical evidence that God revealed Himself or offered salvation to them (cf. Deut 7:6; Amos 3:2; Matt 15:24; John 4:22; Acts 11:18; Rom 3:1; Eph 2:11-13; 1 Pet 3:20).

In addition, making God’s choice of those who are saved conditional on some act or choice of humans, does not solve the problem of how humans might view God. We can be equally offended by the unavoidable fact that God created both humans and Hell knowing beforehand that most of those humans would exist in that Hell for an eternity of torment (cf. Rom 9:1-24; Matt 7:13-14; Matt 5:29-30; Luke 16:23; Rev 14:11). Whether the ultimate reason for someone going to Hell is God’s choice or the person’s choice, it is undeniable that God created most humans knowing that they would eventually eternally exist in Hell.

Therefore, it is not only God’s grace that makes God’s plan for humanity unfair, but also His perfect foreknowledge of everything, including most humans ending up in Hell. This is especially the case when we recognize that, We were chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of Him Who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His [ultimate] will” (Eph 1:11-12), including not only His elect being saved, but the majority of humans being damned.

Admittedly, honestly recognizing the apparent injustices in God’s plan of salvation can be very difficult. Nonetheless, as Jonathan Edwards wrote:

It is from mean thoughts of God, that you contend with him, because he bestows grace on some, and not on others. . . . Therefore consider what you do in quarrelling with God, and opposing his sovereignty. Consider with whom it is you contend. ^[37]

In addition, the consequences of not facing the biblical facts of God’s plan of salvation creates a false god in our minds. We can fashion a God of our own choosing Who is loving and fair to our liking, or we can worship the real God described in Romans 9:1-24 Who does things according to unconditional grace, apart from our works, all for His glory.

In the end, and according to this very passage of Scripture, it is best to understand that glory is God’s ultimate motivation for all He does, not fairness, or even love, and that both Heaven and Hell glorify Him, fulfilling His ultimate plan for Creation (cf. Rom 9:11-12, 22-23; 11:32-36; Eph 1:5-6, 12, 14; 2:7). God never intended His plan of salvation to be fair, but to be by grace for His glory. And because God’s glory is the ultimate characteristic of all He does, and He will not give His glory to another (cf. Isa 48:11; Eph 2:8-9), He has ordained that salvation is ultimately by His grace, works, and free choice alone, and not human merit, works, or free choice.

Ironically, while our naturally human-centered perspective tempts us to despise the God-ordained injustices pointed out above in God’s plan of salvation, there are other God-ordained injustices in His plan that we think are the most attractive things about God, and praise Him for them. These include:

1) God allowing one perfect Person to suffer and pay for the sins committed by a multitude of other people (cf. Rom 5:15-19). What human court of law would allow that?; 2) Making the reward for being saved an eternity in Paradise. While we might think no one deserves Hell, can we say that we would ever deserve Heaven?;

3) Being chosen and saved completely by God’s grace and work, not because of anything we have done, or could do (cf. Rom 11:6; Eph 2:8-9; Tit 3:4-5). This annihilates any human sense of fairness. No one in this life gets so much good from an authority they have disobeyed, and from whom they actually deserve a great deal of punishment. In the end, are we sure we really want God’s plan of salvation to be completely fair and based on what people deserve?

Unfortunately, in our opinion, the failure to admit that ultimately “God has bound all men over to disobedience” (Rom 11:32) has caused several unnecessary errors among both fairists and gracists. The assumption that humans must be ultimately responsible for their bondage to sin has led fairists to believe that they must have the real ability to choose their eternal destiny. Again, their foundational commitment to fairism leads them to the assumption that God would not condemn people for sin unless they were ultimately responsible for saving themselves out of it, and therefore able to escape it by an act or decision of their own.

Therefore, fairists introduce a contradictory thesis to maintain the perception that they are orthodox, but preserve their desire to make God’s plan fair. This contradictory thesis is: 1) God is sovereign over His Creation and we are saved by His grace alone, but 2) We make the ultimate decision and perform the foundational act that decides our eternal destiny. These two concepts cannot both be true and if we want to preserve the first, we must deny the second.

However, even gracists typically attempt to maintain the idea that humans are ultimately responsible for their “disobedience” despite their belief in the overall sovereignty of God in all things. As a result they claim as well that we have two contradictory and irreconcilable “truths” taught in Scripture: The sovereignty and predestination of God and the responsibility of man to obey God. In fact, we detect an ingredient of fairism in the gracists who assume humans are ultimately responsible for their bondage to sin, therefore, it would seem, again attempting to make God’s plan of salvation (and condemnation) fair. ^[38]

On the contrary, there is no contradiction between divine sovereignty and human responsibility or free will because ultimately anything human, including ultimate responsibility for anything, must give way completely and always to the divine sovereignty, decisions, plans, and ultimate desires of the Creator. A truly biblical and God-centered world-view and theology always gives human ability, responsibility, and choices second place in everything to God’s abilities, responsibility, and choices.

And His plan for the ultimate condemnation and salvation of humanity is no exception. Only God’s will is truly free and humanity’s freedoms are confined to the parameters He allows. And when He decided that who would be saved or damned would ultimately be determined by Him according to His grace, He removed this decision from the realm of a humans “free will.” ^[39]

Fortunately, the Bible does not teach that humans are ultimately responsible for their salvation (cf. Eph 2:8-9) or their eternal destiny (cf. Rom 9:1-24). Therefore, we do not need to adopt the postmodern idea that God expects us to simultaneously believe two things that seem contradictory to us, or that God would design His revelation to violate how He has created both truth, and how we would recognize, process, and receive it.

If the ultimate defense that fairists have for their doctrine and understanding of Scripture is that it is supposed to seem contradictory, then they are on very shaky ground, and should not claim to have truth. As the Apostle wrote elsewhere: “Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions [Gk. antithesis] of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Tim 6:20 RSV). God never intended His revelation to be interpreted as contradictory, because then it would not be true, no matter what postmodern philosophy claims. ^[40]

C.5) Gracism preserves the God-ordained appearance of “foolishness” in His plan of salvation: 1 Cor 1:17-2:5

If the above seems foolish and offensive to natural reason, then it is an indication that we do indeed have a correct understanding of God’s plan of salvation. For this is precisely the response the Apostle anticipated when he described it to people. The Apostle wrote of his Gospel:

[T]he message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing . . . , ²¹ For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. ²² Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, ²³ but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor 1:18, 21-23; cf. Gal 5:11).

The Apostle said the authentic Gospel would be “a stumbling block . . . and foolishness” to the “wisdom” of the “world.” Likewise, the preaching “of the cross” would cause “offense.” An important question comes to our mind at this point. Does the fairist gospel seem foolish and offensive to the world? Not at all. It is: 1) God loves everybody including you, 2) but everyone, including you, have fallen short of God’s perfect standard and deserve His punishment, but 3) your life of good deeds is not good enough to pay for all your sins, therefore 4) there is one essential good deed you must do which involves humbling yourself, admitting you need His forgiveness, and choosing to believe that Jesus was sacrificed for your sins, and 5) if you will do these humble, virtuous things, you will be saved.

What would be foolish or offensive, particularly to the multitude of moral and religious people in the world, about that? The people of the world can accept all these things. In fact, “the Greeks” who accused Paul’s Gospel of being “foolishness” (1 Cor 1:23) had a strong belief that exercising humility before the gods gained their favor. All the moral religions adhered to by hundreds of millions of unbelievers agree that human sin deserves divine punishment but God is a forgiving God. And both religious Jews and Greeks had an established belief that blood sacrifices were needed to appease deity for their transgressions.

What then was offensive and foolish about the real Gospel? The absolute inability of humanity to do anything to earn, prompt, or obtain their salvation? ^[41] Paul’s Gospel seemed foolish and offensive because he preached that God chooses a person’s eternal destiny for them, “before” they’ve “done anything good or bad,” and this choice, “does not depend on man’s desire or effort” (Rom 9:11, 16).

What seemed foolish and offended unbelievers about Paul’s Gospel was that he said, “The Potter has the right to create out of the same lump of clay some pottery [humans] for honorable purposes and some for dishonorable use” and He has “created,” some people to be “objects of His wrath” (Rom 9:21-22). What seemed foolish and offensive about Paul’s Gospel was that “God has bound all men over to disobedience” (Rom 11:32).

Against this, the Jews believed they could and must do something to be saved, such as “circumcision” (Gal 1:11), or as Paul put it in Romans, “they pursued it [salvation] . . . as if it were by works” (9:32). In other words, the Jews believed they must make some sort or contribution to their salvation. Paul’s Gospel said they could not make any contribution to it, and it did not “depend on man’s desire or effort.” But the fairist gospel contends that a person’s salvation ultimately does depend on their “desire or effort” or an act of humility or trust and therefore would not be offensive.

Of course in 1 Corinthians 1:17ff, the idea of “Christ crucified” and a deity suffering for people would have seemed absurd to “the Greeks”. ^[42] But surely in Paul’s Gospel was an explanation of why Christ had to die. And that reason was that we could do nothing to save ourselves. This is why the Apostle ends this passage by summarizing: “It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus [not because of anything you were, could do, or did do]. . . Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord” (vs. 30-31). Why? Because God did everything needed to save us and we did nothing.

Let us suggest then the only real thing that makes the Gospel foolish to the world and a scandal to Jews: We have no power or ability to do anything that triggers or initiates our salvation, let alone in any way fulfilling any requirement to be saved. And because the fairist gospel denies this, their gospel does not seem foolish or offensive to the world. Accordingly, we see little that the world would deem foolish or offensive in the fairist gospel, which again raises our concern that it is not a biblical Gospel, because Paul’s Gospel was both.

Preaching on John 6:45 and the topic of human inability regarding their salvation, Charles Spurgeon said:

We have before us now an announcement very startling, some say very obnoxious. Coming to Christ, though described by some people [e.g. fairists] as being the very easiest thing in all the world, is in our text declared to be a thing utterly and entirely impossible to any man, unless the Father shall draw him to Christ.

It shall be our business, then, to enlarge upon this declaration. We doubt not that it will always be offensive to carnal nature, but, nevertheless, the offending of human nature is sometimes the first step towards bringing it to bow itself before God. And if this be the effect of a painful process, we can forget the pain and rejoice in the glorious consequences. ^[43]

The fairist gospel is not objectionable, because it claims God has already given people the ability to do what is needed to bring about their salvation. On the other hand, the Gospel according to Jesus is both offensive and foolish to the world because He said: “to believe in the One He has sent” is “the works God requires” but even this is “the work of God” (John 6:28-29) and not their work. He told the same people:

No one can come to Me [for salvation] unless the Father Who sent Me drags him by His power [elkusē: “drag against ^[44]]. . . . The Spirit gives life; the [unregenerated] flesh counts for nothing [regarding salvation]. . . This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has enabled him” (John 6:44, 63, 65).

He told others: You are unable to hear what I say [because] you belong to your father, the devil (John 8:37). It is human inability regarding their salvation that is foolish and offensive to the world, not the mere fairist gospel that they need forgiveness and that Jesus loves them and died for them and all that God is waiting for is that they humbly receive His gift. Again, what is foolish or offensive about that?

Paul’s Gospel was equally “foolish” and offensive because he taught:

The man without the Spirit does not [and cannot] accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, [including the “wisdom” of the Gospel, cf. vs. 6-7] for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them [let alone put faith in them], because they are spiritually [even supernaturally] discerned.” (1 Cor 2:12, 14).

Likewise, he had taught against human pride in that before “God . . . made us alive,” we were “dead in . . . sins” and therefore if anyone gets saved, “it is by grace . . . through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph 2:1-5, 8-9). Likewise, the Apostle said that in our spiritually dead state “we were still powerless,” meaning “powerless” to do any of the spiritual things necessary to be saved. And this is what is “foolish” and offensive to the world about the Gospel. And we fear that because the fairist gospel claims we are ultimately saved because of something we did that others did not do, but could have, that their gospel is neither foolish nor offensive to the world. The fairist “gospel” that suggests “God helps those who help themselves” is quite acceptable to unregenerated reason. It’s just not true.

C.6) Gracism preserves the God-ordained desire to guarantee salvation: Rom 4:16

All of this is why the Apostle wrote as a conclusion to his contrast of being saved by human works or God’s grace: “Therefore, the promise [of salvation] comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring (Rom 4:16).

By “Abraham’s offspring” the Apostle does not mean that salvation would be “guaranteed” to all of the patriarch’s descendants. On the contrary, the Apostle specifies later:

For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. . . . In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. (Rom 9:6-8)

And the Apostle goes on to explain that “the children of the promise” are those unconditionally elected and predestined by God for salvation, apart from anything “good or bad” they would do. He writes:

Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Rom 9:10-13)

According then to the Apostle’s statement in 4:16, how could “the promise” of salvation to God’s chosen children be “guaranteed”? The fulfillment of the promise must completely depend on God. Which is why it is “by [God’s] grace,” works and power, including the “faith” by which it is given to the chosen children of God. If any part of obtaining salvation depended on humans, even saving faith, it could never be “guaranteed” to anyone. ^[45] Therefore, the ultimate source of every ingredient required for our salvation is God Himself, including saving faith (cf. Eph 2:8-9; Phil 1:29; Rom. 4:16; 1 Tim 1:14; John 6:44; Acts 16:14; 18:27; 1 Pet 1:21; Heb 12:2).

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Father in Heaven, how can we thank You enough for saving us by Your grace. We admit that we could never have saved ourselves, even by producing a faith that would humbly recognize Who You are and repent of who we are. We give You every bit of credit and glory for our salvation and claim no part of it as our own. And we pray that Your Church would repent of doctrines that teach otherwise, and that gut the meaning of salvation by Your grace.

Gauging Your Grasp

1. What do we claim are the necessary contents of saving faith?
2. What are the beliefs of what we call fairism?
3. In our opinion, what are the consequences regarding fairism? Do you agree or disagree and why?
4. Why do we deny that fairism can be labeled as a “different gospel” with the curses incurred by the Apostle of this?
5. Why does the gracist view of God’s plan of salvation seem unfair?
6. What are several ways we address the issue of salvation by God’s grace alone being unfair from a human perspective? Do you agree or disagree and why?
7. Where did the Apostle claim that his Gospel would be perceived as being foolish and offensive?
8. Why do we claim that the way fairist gospel does not seem foolish or offensive to especially religious unbelievers? Why do we believe this is a serious flaw in their gospel? Do you agree or disagree and why?

Recommended Reading

• On the similarity of miracle faith to saving faith in terms of being completely a gift and work of God see chapter 6.8.
• On the spiritual deadness, deafness, and blindness of merely physically born humanity see chapters 4.12-14.
• On the psychological aspects of saving faith, and particularly how it is automatic or “irresistible” for the regenerated person, see chapter 4.16.
• For extended discussion on the debate between gracism and fairism see the website at http://www.monergism.com.

Publications & Particulars

1. For a discussion of the unbiblical idea of “carnal Christianity” see chapter 5.5. ↑

2. John MacArthur comments on the need to accept Christ as Lord in order to be saved:

   Contrary to much teaching today, Scripture never separates Christ’s lordship from His saviorhood.  Lord is from kurios, which signifies sovereign power and authority. In the book of Acts, Jesus is twice referred to as Savior but ninety-two times as Lord. In the entire New Testament, He is referred to some ten times as Savior and some seven hundred times as Lord. When the two titles are mentioned together, Lord always precedes Savior.  And even if, as some erroneously contend, Lord were simply a synonym for God, the very term God by definition includes the idea of sovereign authority, that is, of lordship. (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Parsons Technology, 1997], Rom 10:9. ↑

3. Such is the case particularly with many European leaders of the biblical criticism movement at its height in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. For example, Rudolph Bultmann, who was one of the most influential interpreters of the NT in the twentieth century, is a case in point. This man damned himself, and any who would follow him, by claiming that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was merely a myth. Robert Reymond writes:

   Rudolf Bultmann . . . had as good an intellectual grasp of the content of the Christian gospel as the most orthodox of theologians, but he denied that Jesus was actually born of a virgin, performed the mighty miracles ascribed to him, died on the cross as a sacrifice for sin, and rose from the dead. (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith [Thomas Nelson, 1998], 728).

   If Romans 10:9 is true at face value, then neither Bultmann, nor we, can have any confidence that for all his knowledge, that he really knew Christ. Nevertheless, one is left wondering why he was ever given the privileged honor of being called a Christian scholar, because neither he, nor his teachings are worthy of the name. Liberal theologians are obviously free to reject, reinterpret, or otherwise question how Scripture portrays Christ, but in doing so, they forfeit real faith in the real Christ and therefore forfeit eternal life as well. ↑

4. For further discussion on the nature of salvation by grace and not works see especially section 6.3.C. ↑

5. For biblical support for the claim that saving faith is a belief that has certainty see section 6.16.B ↑

6. J. I. Packer, “Faith” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT), Walter Elwell, ed. (Baker, 1984), 402. ↑

7. Church Historian Kenneth Latourette suggests that a perception of personal experience in conversion may be another reason that people may decide on fairism or gracism:

   The struggle between Augustine and Pelagianism is a phase, within a Christian context, of the agelong controversy between determinism and indeterminism in which in many different cultures thoughtful men have engaged. To Christians with the experience of Paul and Augustine only one answer is possible, for in their own lives they have known the impotence of their wills and the power of victory which has come from outside themselves as the free gift of God through Jesus Christ. To them it is easy to regard the action of God as initiated solely by God and at His unfathomable discretion.

   Others, who have not known that deep inner conflict with its bitter frustration and the amazing joy of triumph through God’s grace, have been inclined to hold to man’s ability to attain, through his own effort, although perhaps aided by God, to the ideal life. (A History of Christianity [Hendricksen, 1975], 181.

   In our opinion, it is questionable as to whether the latter person, according to Dr. Latourette’s description, would even be saved. And haven’t we all experienced spiritual deadness like Augustine and Luther? ↑

8. Presbyterian theologian Donald Bloesch remarks:

   Religion might be defined as an enterprise by which human beings seek to make contact with the spiritual power within them [faith, humility, etc.] and beyond them [God]. [Salvation by] Faith [and grace] represents the intrusion of the Spirit of God into the human soul awakening us to our predicament and moving us to cleave to Jesus Christ as our only Savior. Religion is humanity trying to ascend to God; faith is a work of divinity confronting the human soul in its creatureliness and sinfulness. (Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vols. 1 & 2 (Harper & Row, 1978), 50. ↑

9. For further discussion on the popularity of fairism in our day see section 6.4.I. ↑

10. R. B. Kuiper in The Infallible Word, Ned B. Stonehouse, ed. (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1946), 50. ↑

11. Ian Murray, Jonathan Edwards (Banner of Truth Trust, 1996), 104. ↑

12. For further discussion on the fairist attempt to make God’s plan of salvation contradictory, pitting human and divine responsibility against one another see chapter 2.10 regarding the harmonious nature of divine/biblical truth. For the argument that pitting God’s sovereignty and human responsibility against one another is unnecessary because God is ultimately responsible for a person’s eternal destiny see the following section 6.2.C.3. ↑

13. Augustine, On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin, 1:34; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

14. Martin Luther, quoted at http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/ articles/onsite/ whatmoner_history.html. ↑

15. Quoted in Tom Nettles, “A Better Way: Church Growth Through Revival and Reformation” in Power Religion: The Selling Out of the Evangelical Church, Michael S. Horton ed. (Moody, 1992), 179 ↑

16. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Baker, 1957), 78. ↑

17. Ibid., 100-101. ↑

18. Accordingly the popular Bible teacher Hank Hanegraaff relates:

    While the First Great Awakening had emphasized the rational understanding of essential Christian doctrine, it remained for the Second Awakening [e.g. Charles Finney], the next great wave of American revivalism, to advance almost purely emotional Christianity to a central position in popular American religion. In the First Great Awakening excesses had been the byproduct of revival; in the Second they would be the bottom line. (Counterfeit Revival [Word, 1997], 115-116) ↑

19. Nettles, 179-181. ↑

20. Jonathan Edwards, “Justification by Faith Alone” excerpted from The Great Awakening, (Bobbs-Merrill, 1967), 8-13. ↑

21. Hunt, 114, 122, 145 ↑

22. Luther, 55. ↑

23. For further on a Reformed interpretation of Romans 9 see chapter 18.5. ↑

24. For the classic defense of this statement see Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will (Revell, 1990). ↑

25. For responses to these views of Romans 9 see sections 18.5.F-G. ↑

26. John Stott, The Message of Romans (Intervarsity, 1994), 270. ↑

27. The Greek is poieō which is “to produce something, make, manufacture.” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (BAGD), F. W. Danker, ed., 3^rd ed. (University Of Chicago Press, 2001). ↑

28. Paul is contrasting two Greek words: timē (honorable, valuable, precious, cf. 1 Pet 2:7, BAGD) and atimia (dishonored, disrespected, despised, insignificant, Ibid.). Accordingly, “common” (NASB), “menial” (RSV), and “ordinary” (NRSV) would seem too weak. “Dishonorable” (ESV, KJV, NKJV) is better. Perhaps the NLT gets the contrast of the context the best by having a vessel of atimia be something “to throw garbage into.” The idea is to parallel the references in vs. 22-23 to the “objects of His wrath—created for destruction” and “the objects of His mercy, whom He created in advance for glory.” One suspects that perhaps one of the reasons for favoring the weaker translations is to lessen the offense of the Apostle’s words. ↑

29. The Greek is katērtismena: “to prepare for a purpose, make, create.” (BAGD). ↑

30. The first sentence of Isaiah 45:9 is taken from the NIV and the remainder is the NLT. ↑

31. Thomas Schreiner comments on this passage:

    How should one interpret the word katērtismena. It could be a middle: “they prepared themselves” for destruction . . . or . . . the term implies previous culpability (Dunn 1988: 559-60). None of these solutions is convincing.

    The middle voice is quite rare in NT, while the passive is common. The word, then, denotes the preparation by God (divine passive) for destruction rather than a self preparation (Piper, 1993: 211-13; Moo 1996: 607). This accords with the context, for the emphasis is on God’s sovereignty and freedom, not human agency. (Romans [Baker, 1998], 521-2).

    Likewise, Douglas Moo summarizes this section:

    Paul is asserting God’s right to make from one mass of humanity (the “lump”) some persons who are destined to inherit salvation and others who are destined to wrath and condemnation (See esp. Piper, 174-83; Hodge; Murray) (The Epistle to the Romans [Eerdmans, 1996], 603). ↑

32. BAGD. See 1 Macc. 5:5; 6:18; 11:65; 15:25; Josh. 6:6; Isa. 45:1. ↑

33. James Edwards comments on Romans 11:32:

    Gaugler likens verse 32 to a master key which opens all the doors to Paul’s gospel. That may be an overstatement, but it certainly is the master key to Romans 9-11. (Romans, NIBC [Hendricksen, 1992], 277-8)

    Which is why it is disappointing to see how theologians historically and presently have commented on it. Thomas Schreiner (Romans [Baker, 1998]), John Stott (The Message of Romans [Intervarsity, 1994], Leon Morris (Romans [Eerdmans, 1999]), C. K. Barrett (The Epistle to the Romans [Hendricksen, 1991]) offer limited comment on this most amazing statement.

    In our opinion, the only accurate comment we can find, although sparse, is made by John Murray (1898–1974) when he writes:

    It is not simply that men are disobedient, are therefore in a condition that gives scope for the exercise of mercy, and by God’s sovereign grace become the objects of mercy. The accent now falls upon the determinate action of God (The Epistle to the Romans [Eerdmans, 1997], 102).

    Accordingly, Murray was honest, as was the Apostle Paul, about the fact that the ex nihilo Creator of everything is the ultimate cause of everything, including the bondage of humanity to sin.

    Unfortunately, however, even gracist theologians have thought it necessary to protect God from accusations of injustice. F. Godet (1812-1900) attempted to suggest that humans were already disobedient before God bound them over, making their decision the ultimate cause of their damned state (Epistle to the Romans [Funk & Wagnalls, 1883], 415). Albert Barnes (1798–1870, Notes) and Charles Hodge (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans; online at http://www.ccel.org) promote the same.

    Douglas Moo equates the “handing over” to depravity after continued sin described in Romans 1 to this universal bounding to sin in chapter 11 (736). However, the analogy breaks down when we notice that the “handing over” in chapter 1 does not include all of humanity as the “bounding to sin” in chapter 11 does. In chapter 11 Paul is sharing the ultimate reason for sin. In chapter 1 he is describing one of its ultimate results for some.

    All of these commentators seem eager to protect God from the accusation of injustice when the Apostle himself clearly has no such concern in Romans 9-11. Accordingly, these commentators are at odds with the Apostle and God Himself. This would seem to include John Calvin who commented on Romans 11:32:

    But he [Paul] does not mean, that God so blinds all men that their unbelief is to be imputed to him; but that he hath so arranged by his providence, that all should be guilty of unbelief, in order that he might have them subject to his judgment, and for this end, — that all merits being buried, salvation might proceed from his goodness alone (Calvin’s Commentaries; online at http://www.ccel.org).

    Eloquent as usual, but uncharacteristically illogical and unbiblical. It is crystal clear that the Apostle Paul throughout Romans 9-11 is teaching doctrine the does open God to the accusation of injustice. However, Paul’s response is not to place the responsibility for the eternal damnation or salvation of humans on themselves in order to exonerate God like Calvin and so many others have. On the contrary, to the question of “why does God still blame us? For who resists His will?,” the Apostle responds much more God-centered:

    But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” Does not the Potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Rom 9:19-21). ↑

34. The verse actually reads in the NIV: “God has bound all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all.” Obviously, by “all” the Apostle is not teaching a salvific universalism. He has already taught that some are destined for wrath (cf. 9:22-23). Accordingly, Dr. Moo comments: “Considering the corporate perspective that is basic to chap. 11, then, it seems best to think that “all” refers to “all the groups” about which Paul has been speaking; for example, Jews and Gentiles (736). ↑

35. In the BAGD we read regarding kriseōs commonly translated in James 2:13 as “judgment.”:

    administration of what is right and fair, right in the sense of justice/righteousness . . . he will proclaim justice for the gentiles Mt 12:18 . . . . until he leads justice to victory vs. 20. . . . The rendering right, justice may also be valid for such passages as J 7:24; 12:31; 16:8, 11; Ac 8:33 [so NRSV]. ↑

36. We will note here that we believe God predetermined and freely chose who would be a sinner and who would be a saint, and performed all of the necessary works to ensure individuals fulfilled their chosen destiny, including either regenerating them or leaving them in the bondage to sin He had placed them in.

    However, we believe God does not predetermine how much a saint may be rewarded for good works, or how much a sinner might be punished for their sinful choices. God gives out various levels of rewards and punishments based on good or bad works. This is certainly true of saints. Our good works are free choices we make and we are therefore justly and accordingly rewarded for them. Likewise, not all sinners are equally sinful and the severity of their eternal judgment is based on the free choices they made not to sin as much as they could. (cf. Jer 17:10; Matt 10:15; 11:22, 34; Luke 24:47-48; Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 22:12)

    In other words, while God predetermines a person to be a sinner, He does not predetermine or choose how much they will sin. Likewise, while He predetermines who will be a saint, He does not predetermine how many good works they will choose. Who is predestined to be a sinner or saint is God’s choice because it is by His grace (and “unfair”). However, how much a saint is rewarded or a sinner punished is their choice because these are based on works (and “fair”). This is only one example of the fact that so much good theology is dependent on properly assigning the spheres of God’s predetermining will and His permissive will, or what God decides and what He allows us to decide. ↑

37. Jonathan Edwards, quoted at http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/ articles/onsite/whatmoner_history.html. ↑

38. Regarding the tendency for even Reformed theologians to claim an irreconcilable paradox between God’s sovereignty and a human’s free will see our critique of such fideism in chapter 2.10. ↑

39. The primacy of God’s truly free will over the subsequent and conditional “free will” of humans is the subject of Jonathan Edwards classic treatise on the subject, Freedom of the Will; online at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ edwards/will.html  ↑

40. The following is John Piper’s thoughts on Romans 9:19-23 and the accusation that God is unjust if humans cannot choose their own eternal destiny. If nothing else, we believe it demonstrates the limits of how far we can answer this question:

    In 9:19 Paul anticipates the next objection to what he has just said in 9:15-18. The objector reasons like this: If, as you say, a person’s hardness is owing ultimately to God’s will and not to a man’s “willing or running,” then it is unrighteous of God to condemn a man for that very hardness. In your view, Paul, nobody has ever successfully resisted the divine will, because even when they are resisting God’s commands (as Pharaoh did), they are still fulfilling God’s secret purposes. So God is wrong to find fault with men, since without the freedom of self-determination men cannot justly be condemned for their choices. . . .

    The rhetorical question of 9:20b gives the reason why a person like Pharaoh (or his advocate in 9:19) should not question God’s ways: man is creature; God is creator. For man to advise God about how he ought to act is as out of place as for a statue to advise a sculptor how to chisel. The presumption that a man’s sense of values is ultimate and can prevail against God’s sense of values is as ludicrous to Paul as a ranting figurine. . . .

    Romans 9:22,23 is Paul’s final insight into the whys and wherefores of unconditional election, and (together with 9:15-18) it is probably the closest that the Bible ever comes to offering us a justification of the mysterious ways of God with man. . . .

    Grammatically the main assertion of 9:22,23 is, “God sustained and tolerated in much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction” (9:22c). . . .

    Most important for Paul, however, is God’s purpose in acting this way: . . . “Because God desires … he sustained and tolerated….” What he desires is to accomplish a purpose, namely, “to demonstrate wrath and to make known his power.” Therefore, by revealing a twofold purpose which God desires to accomplish, Rom 9:22ab answers the question why God sustains and tolerates vessels of wrath. Evidently, by doing this, God’s sovereign power and terrible wrath can be demonstrated even more vividly than if God were to bring down final judgment on vessels of wrath at the very outset of their disobedience. . . .

    Since God is the absolutely sovereign creator, his creatures cannot legitimately find fault with him. . . . [F]or Paul, God’s righteousness, as we have seen, consists most fundamentally in his unswerving will to preserve and display his glory. To argue that God should not give open display to his wrath is to imply that it is not in fact glorious, that God is not in fact as he should be. But how can a creature advise the eternal, never-becoming, always-perfectly-being God what he should be like? He cannot. It is unthinkable (9:20). . . .

    Therefore, the only way Paul can even attempt to justify God’s sovereign hardening is not to show that it accords with normal human values, nor that it follows from the ways humans regularly employ their reason, but rather that it follows necessarily from what it means to be God. It is precisely the incomprehensible distinction between the never-having-begun givenness of the infinite God and the utterly dependent brevity of human life that makes it so hard for us, especially with our incorrigible bent toward self-exaltation, to affirm the ways of God. But I do not doubt that Paul cherished the hope that, perhaps not many, but some would see what it means to be God and would “justify him” (cf Lk 7:29,35) in all lowliness and trust.

    Now in 9:23 Paul takes one last step into the divine mystery. There is another, final purpose which God aims at in patiently tolerating vessels of wrath made for destruction. By this he aims “to make known the wealth of his glory on vessels of mercy which he prepared beforehand for glory.” . . .

    The remarkable thing is that the revelation of this treasure of glory which the church (cf 9:24) will experience as mercy, is accomplished, at least in part, by God’s patiently sustaining and tolerating vessels of wrath set for destruction. . . . [T]here is a unity in this display in that the various manifestations of all God’s attributes stand in the service of his mercy, and thus function to heighten the revelation of glory for the vessels of mercy and to intensify their appreciation of it. . . . The acts of God . . . cohere to achieve one great end—the magnification of God’s great glory for the eternal enjoyment of his chosen people. (The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, Kindle Edition [Baker, 1993], 3114-3190) ↑

41. As Dr. Barnes commented on 1 Corinthians 1:17ff concerning Paul’s Gospel: “It did not accord with their own views of the way of elevating the condition of man” (Notes). Likewise, NT scholar Gordon Fee summarizes 1 Corinthians 1:17ff as follows:

    One can scarcely conceive of a more important—and difficult—passage for the church today than this one. It is difficult, for the very reason it was in Corinth. We simply cannot abide the scandal of God’s doing things his way, without our help. (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT [Eerdmans, 1987], 77.

    Along the same lines, NT scholar C. K. Barrett comments on this passage: “It is certainly Paul’s meaning that the acceptance of the Gospel, whether by Jews or Greeks, is rooted ultimately in a divine, not a human, decision. (The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Hendrickson, 2000], 55-6.

    Accordingly, some thoughts we have written elsewhere regarding intellectual apologetics would seem to equally apply to fairists:

    In fact, contrary to intellectual apologetics, God wants to “frustrate . . . the intelligence of the intelligent” and is not interested in the least about being attractive to the unregenerated “wise man,” “scholar,” or “philosopher of this age” (1:19-20). . . . Accordingly, God is not pleased with a worldly evangelistic approach that attempts to make the Gospel seem attractive and “wise” to unregenerated humans. In fact, if unregenerated humans find our preaching attractive instead of foolish, then we are probably not preaching “the Gospel” (1:17), “the message of the cross,” (1:18), and “Christ crucified” (1:23), but rather, man-made philosophical, historical, and scientific arguments intended to make Christianity attractive and acceptable to unregenerated reason on merely a human level. . . .

    Notice then why the Apostle excluded the use of intellectual apologetics from his evangelistic ministry. It was to facilitate, rather than hinder, the working of “God’s power” or the “Spirit’s power” in giving saving faith to people. Few people take Paul’s warning seriously enough that if “words of human wisdom” are used in our evangelistic message, the message of “the cross of Christ [will] be emptied of its power” (1:17). Paul warns again that if our evangelistic ministry is “with wise and persuasive words” to argue and defend the Gospel at a human level, that we are in danger of forfeiting “a demonstration of the Spirit’s power” (2:4) necessary for people to get saved, all because we are trusting too much in our power to save. Excerpt from section 5.11.A.1. ↑

42. cf. Fee, 76; Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians (Eerdmans, 1999), 46; Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Eerdmans, 2000), 170, Charles Hodge, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

43. Charles Spurgeon, Sermon 182, online at http://www.spurgeon.org/ sermons/ 0182.htm. A Sermon Delivered on Sabbath Morning, March 7, 1858 by the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens. ↑

44. The NIV translation of God “drawing” someone to Christ means much more than inviting or coaxing. The word is elkusē which the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (BAGD) defines as: “To move an object . . . with implication that the object being moved is incapable of propelling itself or in the case of persons is unwilling to do so voluntarily.” Accordingly, see its use in John 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; and James 2:6. The insertion of “drag by God’s power” is warranted in this text, and the context is salvation. ↑

45. Unfortunately, in our opinion, the commentaries on Romans 4:16 are generally inadequate in explaining the full impact of this foundational summary statement of Paul. Some confine their statements to the fact that the guarantee means we would keep our salvation, but even as far back as Chrysostom, it was understood that the Apostle also meant the guarantee of our obtaining salvation (Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT [Eerdmans, 1996], 278).

    Many others essentially paraphrase Paul without going deeper in terms of what it means to be saved “by faith” and “by grace.” James Edwards and Thomas Schreiner do the best in this regard. The former writes in his New International Bible Commentary:

    Salvation must depend on grace and not on works, for if salvation comes by grace than it depends on God and is therefore certain; but if it depends on works or law, then it is as unreliable as the human heart and will. (Romans [Hendrickson, 1992], 124).

    Dr. Schreiner writes:

    Again in verses 12-16 the thought is that if the promised inheritance were based on keeping the law, then it would no longer depend on God’s grace but on human ability. . . . There is probably also the suggestion that faith itself is God’s gift, for the promise is “secured” or “confirmed” (bebaian) since it depends on God’s grace. (Romans, BECNT [Baker, 1998], 231)

    We would go further and claim there is more than a probable suggestion that “faith itself is God’s gift.” It is clearly stated elsewhere by the Apostle (cf. Eph 2:8-9, Phil 1:29; section C.3 of this chapter), and demanded by the fact that Paul says the obtaining of salvation for the elect was to be “guaranteed.” ↑