Soteriology Simplified

Soteriology is the doctrine of salvation. The word itself comes from two Greek words, “soteria” which means “salvation” and “logos” which means “word”. “Soteria” comes from “soter” which means “Savior”. So soteriology is literally a “word on salvation”. Salvation encompasses two aspects. The first is the foundational aspect where God has taken the initiative in providing a Savior, and the second involves the application of that provision to the individual. Each is intricately related as well as uniquely distinct. The first is clearly God’s sole initiative. The second involves a response on the part of the individual. The first focuses on the redeeming work of Christ at Calvary and the second on the application of that work in the individual who by faith repents and is then saved. The first involves God’s active initiative in redemption while the second is based on man’s role and responsibility in that redemptive process.

Each aspect is uniquely relative to the party involved. While it is absolutely true that God is indeed sovereign and salvation is a work of God’s grace and His grace alone, it must be understood that man’s responsibility in the salvific process of redemption is precisely that: his responsibility. Additionally, his responsibility in the process demands a response-ability position as well. Man’s involvement in the salvific process does not in any way take away from God’s sovereignty in that process. A common argument in this area is that man’s choice cannot trump God’s choice. God is not at the whim of an individual and His will is not subject to the sovereign will of men. While this seems to be a valid argument, there is the concept that says, “Rule number 1 is ‘God is absolutely sovereign.’ Rule number two is, ‘When God is not sovereign, refer back to rule number one.’” The idea that man’s responsibility of repentance in the salvific process somehow restricts or limits God’s sovereignty is absolutely baseless.

Consider the following argument. God gave man the choice to choose. Man did not have a choice in the matter. Not only did God give man the choice to choose, but He also set the consequences of those choices. Man did not have a choice in setting the consequences. So as men make decisions with respect to the revelatory work of the gospel and the reconciliatory work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the proclamation of that gospel, those choices are subject to the sovereignty of God and God is faithful to do exactly what He says He will do with respect to those decisions. Does this mean God is not sovereign in salvation? No. If He does exactly what He says He will do, then it is clear that God is sovereign in that process.

There are two primary means by which God’s initiative in salvation is made available to men. First, God has chosen to “reveal” Himself to His creation. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” ^[1] “When you have seen Me you have seen the Father^[2] Revelation is God’s initiative. The Word of God is God’s declaration of who He is and what it is that He has come to do for us. It is a record of God’s promises to us as well as a promise of His provisions for us. The second aspect of God’s initiative is that of reconciliation. God has declared that He has come to reconcile the world unto Himself. This is accomplished in the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. As God’s revelation of who He is and what it is that He has done and continues to do in the world He created goes out, the Holy Spirit works with that revelation to bring men to repentance. This is God’s sole initiative. It makes no sense for God to send Jesus to the cross if He is not going to reveal the reasons why He is doing so and how those provisions wrought on the cross are to benefit those who are lost in need of a Savior.

Salvation is God’s sole initiative. However, man plays a role in the salvific process as well. Both revelation and reconciliation, which are God’s initiative in salvation, require a response. Revelation demands a response. If there is no response, then there is no revelation. When one reads “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life” a response is demanded! One either believes that God is everything that He says He is and that He will do everything He says He will do or he rejects God’s revelation and refuses to acknowledge it as being real or relevant in his life. The same is true of reconciliation. As the Word of God goes out, the Holy Spirit seeks to write that Word on the heart of the individual receiving that Word. Reconciliation like revelation demands a response. Man is able to respond to God’s initiatives in salvation.

Soteriology is based on the provision of salvation given to the world by God Himself in His Son Jesus. Soteriology must focus on the revelatory and reconciliatory initiatives God has set in place to give efficacy to the provision itself. As it has already been stated, God gave man the choice to choose. Man did not have a choice in this matter. In addition to giving man the choice to choose, God also set the consequences for the choices men were given by Him to make. Man did not have a choice in the consequences of his choices. God Himself set those consequences. God’s salvific plan is clearly set and demands a response from those who are confronted with the revelatory and reconciliatory initiatives that God has set in place to bring about the salvation of those He loves.

This simplified soteriological approach is very different from that which is presented by the proponents of Calvinism. Calvinism or Reformed Theology is a theological belief system that has helped shape Christian thought since the sixteenth century. This theological belief system gets its name from John Calvin who followed much of Augustine’s theology with respect to subjects related to predestination and the “Sovereignty of God.” St. Augustine of Hippo dates back to the fourth century. Calvin was influential in leading church fathers in what would become known as the Protestant Reformation. Calvin was instrumental in associating the doctrine of God’s grace with the doctrine of predestination. The primary focus was not that God saved sinners, but rather that God’s choice of who would be saved was based solely on His own choice without any reference to personal merit or achievement.^[3] Calvinism is a system of theology that centers itself around the 5 Points of Calvinism, namely, Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. For most, the issue of Limited Atonement is the critical point of contention. This tenet basically says that Christ died for the elect only. Since all people are not saved, Christ could not have died to pay the penalty for their sin. Based on this statement, Christ died for those who are saved and not for those who are not saved. ^[4]

Calvinism is a theological belief system that has helped shape Christian thought since the sixteenth century. This theological belief system gets its name from John Calvin who followed much of Augustine’s theology with respect to subjects related to predestination and the “Sovereignty of God.” St. Augustine of Hippo dates back to the fourth century. Calvin was influential in leading church fathers in what would become known as the Protestant Reformation. Calvin was instrumental in associating the doctrine of God’s grace with the doctrine of predestination. This primary focus was not that God saved sinners but rather that God’s choice of would be saved was based solely on His Own choice without any reference to their own personal merit or achievement.^[5] Calvinism is a system of theology that centers itself around the 5 Points of Calvinism, namely, Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. For most, the issue of Limited Atonement is the critical point of contention. This tenet basically says that Christ died for the elect. Since all people are not saved, Christ could not have died to pay the penalty for their sin. Based on this statement, Christ died for those who are saved and not for those who are not saved. ^[6]

How a person comes to Christ and passes from death to life is essential to the Christian experience. Soteriology Simplified will present a different perspective on this salvific process. In doing so, there are a couple of things that need to be clearly established. First, salvation is of the Lord. God and God alone is responsible for salvation. Salvation is not possible apart from His redeeming work accomplished at Calvary and afforded at conversion. It is impossible for anyone to earn salvation apart from God’s initiative in salvation and there is nothing anyone can do to deserve God’s grace. Salvation is God’s gracious gift to mankind.

There is a second aspect of the salvation experience that is equally important in the salvific process. While salvation is of the Lord, it must be understood that salvation is equally contingent upon man’s response to the initiatives God has established. Salvation is based on three primary initiatives on God’s part. The first initiative is redemption. At Calvary, God provided a sacrifice in His Son, Jesus. Jesus paid the penalty for sin as He willingly laid down His life as the ultimate sacrifice for sin. The second initiative is revelation. God has given His Word to let mankind know who He is, who man is, and what God’s purpose is in creating him as well as in redeeming him after the fall. The third initiative in God’s salvific plan is reconciliation, which involves the Holy Spirit’s convincing and convicting work in the human heart as the gospel goes out. Each of these three initiatives requires a response. This is perhaps the single most important aspect of the salvific process. Much has been written about the efficacy of this response. Soteriology Simplified will focus on this statement and seek to establish a scripturally sustainable foundation for a valid theological position.

Theology is a difficult process to master. Theology is based on the study of the Bible and its message. While theology itself is in theory a study of the message of the Bible, it is a study of what others have said about the Bible over the centuries. One might argue that since the Bible has not changed significantly, apart from various translations, how others have explained its themes and messages remains as relevant today as when originally written. Perhaps there is some truth to that. It is unquestionably true that one is most certainly not likely to say anything unique today that has not already been written or said by someone else in the past. It is also true that there is no need to “re-invent the wheel” where the study of the Scriptures is concerned. However, when most of the discussion and discovery concerning various theological positions is focused on what others have said about the Scriptures, one cannot deny the fact that this approach in and of itself cannot begin to compare to the study of the Scriptures themselves. This creates a serious problem where the study of theology itself is concerned.

There is another problem that the study of theology poses. Even if one makes the source of study the Scriptures as opposed to what men have written about the Scriptures, there are still serious potential problems. The purpose of the Scripture is to reveal who God is and what it is that He has promised to man and what He expects from man. As one seeks to discover these principles and wrap those truths into a systematic theological package, the purpose of the Scriptures changes from revealing God and a personal relationship with Him to becoming a proof text for theological presuppositions and philosophical positions that are being developed. In this case, the Scriptures themselves become the focus of one’s study and that in and of itself creates a systematic problem of sorts. When God is the object of one’s study, the Bible is in its element and it has great power. However, when one makes the Bible itself or even the message of the text the object of one’s study, it is no longer in its element and its purpose is supplanted and that opens the door to potential problems.

For centuries, historical criticism, source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition criticism, canonical criticism and a host of other sources of critical analysis were employed to evaluate the Scriptures themselves. The object of study became the text rather than the God of the Scriptures, creating a host of problems. As issues were identified related to the writing and various textual nuances noted, conclusions made their way into the theological tenets that began challenging the Scripture’s portrayal of God Himself.

The same problem exists when the focus of one’s study shifts from textual criticism to theological conjectures. Once again, when the focus of one’s study is the theological implications presented by the text as opposed to discovering the truths taken out of the text, the potential for error remains high. While it can be argued that the two are one and the same, that is not necessarily the case. Theology is a philosophical approach to understanding and relating the various truths presented in the Scriptures. While it is easier to see the problems that can arise with making textual criticism the object of one’s study, it is not as easy to see the potential problems that can arise with making theology the object of one’s study. Theology is not the objective of the Bible. Understanding theology is one thing; it may help one understand the Bible but that does not mean that theology necessarily helps anyone understand God, which is the sole purpose of the Scriptures. There is a difference.

Unfortunately, academia presents its own challenges and problems where understanding the Scripture is concerned. While the Scriptures are vital, theology often shifts the focus from what the Scriptures themselves say to what others say about the Scriptures. Theology often becomes a study of what men say about the Scriptures as opposed to a study of what the Scriptures themselves actually say. While it is true that there is no need to “try to reinvent the wheel” where theological discussion is concerned, there is also the difficult danger of knowing which theological discussions are beneficial and relevant as opposed to those that are ever so slightly off, which combined with others can lead theologies themselves to illogical and incorrect conclusions. Academia in general seeks to take the text itself out of its proper context and makes the message the object of study as opposed to making God Himself the object of its study. This presents some grave dangers in any endeavor to seek to tie the truths revealed in Scripture into a systematic theological understanding. It is important to try to tie together the truths that run from Genesis to Revelation. One must however, remember the dangers in that endeavor. It is essential to let the text speak for itself as opposed to relying too heavily on what others have said of the text in formulating the theological postulates that will serve to influence future generations.

Redemption is a process established by God Himself that is accomplished by His Divine plan and carried out without any input on man’s part. Man had no input in this redemptive plan and process. God determined what He was going to do and how He was going to do what He had planned to do. Redemption is God’s sole initiative in salvation. There is a second initiative in this salvific process. Redemption is made possible by God’s initiative in revelation. For redemption to be possible, God has necessarily chosen to reveal Himself to mankind so that he might know who God is and what it is that God has done for him to make this great salvation possible.

The Bible says, “without faith it is impossible to please God.” The Word of God is clear: men are saved “by faith” in the assurances of God and the provisions He has promised to those who by faith choose to accept those promises and provisions. A great working definition of faith can be found in the latter part of Hebrews 11:6, where Paul continues his statement, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” Paul goes on to write, “for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” Look at Paul’s statement here. “He who comes to God must believe that He is;” that He is what? The one who comes to God must believe that He is “everything He says He is!” This is where revelation comes into play. In the Bible, God has revealed who He is and what it is that He has done to provide salvation to a lost and dying world. The one who comes to God must believe that God is everything He says He is and he must also believe that He will do everything that He says He will do. Look at what Paul writes, “that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” In other words, God will keep His promises and He will do everything He says He will do as He rewards those who diligently seek Him. This idea of diligently seeking Him is clearly a response on Man’s part to God’s revelatory initiative in His redemptive process.

Redemption is God’s initiative in salvation along with revelation. There is a third initiative on God’s part in the salvific process and that initiative is reconciliation. The Bible says that God has chosen to reconcile the world unto Himself. ^[7] Make no mistake about it, it is impossible for an individual to accomplish this on his own. Reconciliation is not possible apart from God’s redeeming work revealed to man in His Word. While revelation is accomplished through the Word, reconciliation is accomplished through the work of the Holy Spirit as God’s Word is being or has been revealed. This reconciliatory work of the Holy Spirit always accompanies the revelatory work detailing God’s redemptive plan to the lost. All three initiatives that God and God alone has put into place to redeem lost man require a response on man’s part. Man is both responsible and “response-able” where Redemption, Revelation and Reconciliation are concerned. It seems quite interesting that theology uses a theory of inability where choosing to respond to God’s initiatives in salvation is concerned. It would be almost inconceivable that anyone in any other philosophical arena would suggest that an individual was incapable of choosing to accept or reject a position presented to them apart from some outside independent catalyst endeavoring to bring about the appropriate response. This is, however, an accepted concept in most theological circles.

Redemption is not universal. It is available to all but effectual for those who repent of their sin and by faith respond to the revelatory work of the Word and the reconciliatory work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a lost person. God’s initiative in salvation is completed as a lost person responds to God’s initiatives in redemption, revelation and reconciliation. Apart from God’s sole initiative in redemption, man could not be saved nor could he of his own accord earn right standing before God and would therefore be eternally damned. The same is true for revelation and reconciliation.

Most do acknowledge and accept the fact that man must respond to the gospel message and that response does in fact affect his eternal destiny. However, there is a lot of debate on the extent of God’s involvement in man’s response to His salvific initiatives. Most theological positions begin with the Augustinian foundation of original sin that has been passed down to all men. While the Bible’s position on sin is simple, that “all men have sinned” and “the wages of sin is death” what is not so clear is how Adam’s sin has affected mankind rendering him lost and in need of a Savior. There are several key questions that have been hotly debated leading to sharp theological divides over the last several centuries.

The first question centers itself on the issue of redemption. The Bible says Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for the sin of the whole world. This statement opens the door to several problematic positions. If Jesus did indeed pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world, then one could conclude that all men are set free from the penalty of sin. If Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of all men, then does that mean that all men are saved and go to heaven when they die? Those who answer this question “yes” are called universalists and believe all men go to heaven when they die. This position is problematic because Jesus does speak of a place of eternal torment called hell and while it is a place prepared for the devil and his angels it is also the eternal destiny for all those He says He “has never known”. ^[8]

Since it seems clear that the Bible teaches that there is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun for every person, the question, “how does one pass from death unto life” becomes an essential priority where this life is concerned and its eternal consequences. Since Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of the world and given the fact that there are those who will leave this life lost and destined for a devil’s hell, how can these two polarizing positions be resolved theologically? One position taken was that Jesus died for those who would believe and be saved. Those who held this position would argue that Jesus could not have died for those who would not be saved, because the penalty for their sin could not be paid for in full and then they spend eternity in judgment. Martin Luther and John Calvin took this position. They argued that Jesus died for the sins of the “elect” defined as those who would by faith repent and believe. This position is described by the term “limited atonement.”

Limited atonement in and of itself is necessary for anyone who accepts the Biblically supported position that some will spend eternity in heaven and many will spend eternity in hell. Christ’s atoning sacrifice must be limited to those who repent and by faith believe or one must accept the tenets of universal salvation. So, while limited atonement is itself a theological certainty, the conditions that limit Christ’s atoning sacrifice and how those conditions are realized in the lives of believers are critical and are again the subject of sharp theological debate. Since salvation is seen as the solution to man’s situation created by sin, theology has focused itself on the cause and nature of sin to try to provide a foundation for its differing theological positions.

The Bible points to the existence of sin as it records the event of Adam’s sin. The Bible does not explain how Adam’s sin affects the rest of mankind; it simply states the fact that Adam did sin and his children sinned and all men who have been born after him have sinned. Theologians have gone to great lengths to try to explain the effects of Adam’s sin on mankind. By acknowledging a sin nature, theologies have established a link to man’s nature and his ability to make choices. A lot has been written on man’s ability to make choices with respect to his “free will.” Augustine argued that in Adam all of mankind fell and in that fall his ability to make choices was limited to a fallen nature and as such he could not respond to God without God first changing his fallen nature to a new nature that could respond positively. For Augustine, all men inherited the guilt for Adam’s sin and as such all men were dead spiritually rendering them “totally depraved” with no ability to respond positively to the gospel apart from God’s Divine gift of grace that allowed them to do so. This is the underlying foundation for Reformed Theology as well as the Arminian position.

It must be understood that this position of total depravity and inability is just that: a philosophical position that is supra-scriptural. This is a position that is based on a number of passages found in the Scripture but one that the Scripture itself neither suggests nor supports. If the popular tenet of total depravity and inability were to prove to be incorrect, most academic theological positions would fail. To be perfectly clear, the theological position to be presented in Soteriology Simplified will not be based on a total depravity and inability position. While it is true man is no doubt depraved spiritually, it is not necessarily true that his depravity has to be taken to the extreme inability position. This is not the position Soteriology Simplified takes.

Instead of looking at the guilt of Adam’s sin being passed down to mankind, Soteriology Simplified will take a different look at sin and its effect on man’s sin nature. There is no question that men do have a sin nature. All men have sinned and come short of the glory of God and no one has the means of earning right standing with God apart from the effectual work of grace that God and God alone gives. The Bible says that God created man in “His own image.” Nowhere in the Bible is it ever stated that sin changed that. If man still has this “image of God” as part of his being, he most certainly is still able to respond to the God of creation. To assume a different position, is to assume a philosophical position and not a Scripturally supported position. If man still reflects the image of God as he was created, then in spite of his sin nature, he can still respond to God’s initiatives in redemption, revelation and reconciliation. This is the position Soteriology Simplified will take. Please note this in no way makes any claim that man has the ability in and of himself to earn right standing with God. Soteriology Simplified will take the position that not only does he have the ability to respond to God’s initiatives in redemption, revelation and reconciliation, he has a responsibility to do so. This is a foundational difference in the soteriological position Soteriology Simplified will take in contrast with most other theological positions.

How did Adam’s sin affect mankind? How does the decision that Adam made in the Garden of Eden affect men today? This is a very important question and the answer to that question is essential in understanding how salvation is even possible. An errant position on sin and its effects on a person’s ability to make decisions with respect to salvation is a dangerous position to be in. The total depravity and inability position sets up a theological system that places the salvation of all men solely on the will of God Himself. Because sinful man is totally depraved and is enslaved to his sin nature, some conclude and argue he does not have the ability to respond positively to the gospel message. If one holds this position, he must understand that in this unregenerate position, revelation has no bearing on the choices he makes. There is no reconciliatory work from the Holy Spirit on the heart of the lost or unregenerate person. There is no hope of salvation for this person at this point. Since the Bible says, “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes,” ^[9] there is a serious problem created when one’s theological position does not give the gospel any place in the salvific process. This is an errant position that both the Arminian and Calvinist positions posit.

For the gospel to have any effect on the unregenerate including his ability to repent in the Calvinist theological system, God has to first regenerate the lost person giving him a new heart and a new nature that can then repent and by faith believe. In this salvific scheme, it can be argued that repentance and believing faith are not conditions of conversion but rather first acts of sanctification. When God supernaturally regenerates the lost individual, he is given a new heart and new life and consequently a new nature that allows him to repent and believe. This kind of position is clearly not one described in the Bible. It is, however, a philosophical position that is popularly held by many today.

There is something that needs to be clarified here. There is a huge difference in saying that the unregenerate has no ability to save himself nor can he take the initiative to come to God of his own accord as opposed to arguing he does not have the ability to respond to God, who has taken the initiative to save him. The big problem with most theological positions is that they seemingly try to equate the two positions and put them into one singular position. The logic seems to state that since man cannot come to God on his own, he cannot respond to God on his own either. There is a major difference between the two statements and while the former is certainly true that does not mean the latter is equally true. It is not.

If man’s sin nature is not directly related to Adam’s guilt, then how did this sin nature come to be and how does it affect humankind? To answer this question, a look at God’s remedy for sin may well reveal the root cause of the sin problem men face. If salvation is looked at from the perspective of right standing with God, then it would be accurate to say that men who do have right standing have salvation and those who do not have right standing do not have salvation and are lost and in need of a Savior. This is a simple statement but one that is profoundly accurate. When an individual repents of his sin and by faith believes in the promises of God revealed in His Word, the Holy Spirit takes up residence in that person’s heart and he is adopted into God’s forever family. The presence of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the new born believer becomes the guarantee of the prized possession, which is eternal life in heaven. New life is the result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and apart from that indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit there can be no new life and there can be no right standing with God.

In the Calvinistic system, regeneration is “new life.” New life is made possible by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and apart from the indwelling, there can be no new life. ^[10] This position creates a serious problem with the regeneration before repentance and believing faith position. The argument that regeneration brings about new life in an otherwise dead being, giving the unregenerate a new heart and nature to enable repentance and faith, is scripturally problematic because the regeneration position that makes repentance possible requires the Holy Spirit to take up residence in an unrepentant heart. Scripturally, repentance precedes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Repentance cannot be the result of nor a response to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is essential to new life and a new nature. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the result of repentance and believing faith and not the catalyst for them. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is what gives new life. So, new life is the result of repentance and believing faith and cannot be the catalyst for them.

If salvation is seen as the direct result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then the indwelling of the Holy Spirit can be seen as the means of right standing with God. From this perspective, man’s right standing with God is the direct and immediate result of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the new born individual. This is basically what existed when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden prior to Adam’s sin. God walked with Adam in the garden and the first couple experienced and enjoyed His perpetual presence with them. Adam and Eve had right standing with God. This truth may well hold the key to understanding the essence of man’s sin nature.

God told Adam that he had free rein in the garden. God told Adam that He could do what he wanted to do with one exception; Adam was not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil for in the day that he did, God warned him he would surely die. The Book of Genesis tells the story of Adam’s sin. Eve was tempted by the serpent and she did eat of the tree and the Bible says she gave the fruit to Adam and he did eat it as well. What is interesting in this story is Adam did not die immediately. Nowhere in this account is it even remotely hinted that his sin rendered him totally depraved and unable to respond to God. In fact, the opposite is true. God came walking in the cool of the garden as He was accustomed to doing and He called out to Adam and the Bible says Adam responded. Did God have to regenerate Adam allowing him to respond? There is no indication that regeneration was even necessary. God asked a question and Adam responded. This is fundamental in the argument of depravity and inability. If Adam’s sin changed his nature and he was spiritually dead, then he had to be regenerated to respond to God. There is no escaping this reality. It simply is not the case for Adam then and it is not the case for mankind today either.

The fact that God warned Adam against eating the fruit which would cause his death, can be seen as an indication that he was created to live with God forever. Considering this position, it could be argued that right standing with God results in life without death. This is an interesting concept because that is what the Bible says takes place when the Holy Spirit takes up residence in the repentant heart. That person is then guaranteed eternal life in heaven with God. In short, right standing with God results in everlasting life with God. The indwelling or restoring of right standing with God puts man back in the position that God created Adam in, allowing him to live with God forever in the garden.

Though Adam sinned, he was still able to respond to God’s questions. Adam responded to God by saying he was scared when they heard God coming and they hid themselves because they knew they were naked. An interesting side note is recorded in the Scriptures. Adam and Eve made coverings of fig leaves to hide their sin. It was woefully inadequate. God clothed the couple with animal skins. This required the blood of animals to be shed and in this first redemptive move on God’s part the blood of a sacrifice was shed to provide a covering for Adam and Eve. The wages of sin is death is true even in the Garden of Eden; the blood of animals was substituted for the blood of Adam and Eve, at least at this point. The picture of the fig leaves points to Adam’s inability to provide a covering for his own sin and it also points to his inability to rightly stand before God. Sin separates man from God; it does not separate God from man. There are consequences for the choices men make. There were consequences for the choice Adam made in eating of the fruit that God told him not to eat. They are together in the garden. They are conversing in the garden. How does this event affect man and cause his sin nature?

In looking carefully at the events that followed Adam’s sin, focus moves to God’s choice to put Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. This singular solitary event may well hold the key to the essence of man’s sin nature. Look at what happened. God put the couple out of the Garden. At this point, Adam lost his right standing with God. He was no longer rightly related to God and he no longer enjoyed God’s perpetual presence. It is at this point that Adam’s body that was created to live forever began to die. How does Adam’s being put outside the garden cause sin to reign in his new nature?

Romans 3:23 makes a very interesting statement. Paul wrote, “all men have sinned and ‘come short of the glory of God’.” This phrase in the latter part of the verse can be seen as a definition of sin itself; to “come short of the glory of God” is certainly a great basis for a definition of sin. With this definition in mind, consider Adam’s being expelled from the garden and him losing his right standing with God. He is no longer able to approach God as he once did. In fact, from this point on, no one is able to approach God on his own. Because of Adam’s sin, man is now outside the garden and banned from God’s perpetual presence. If one were to see this condition as “falling short of the glory of God” then it does not matter how moral or how “right” an individual’s decision might be, it falls short of God’s glory or His perfect plan because that individual is not rightly related to God. From this perspective, the cause of man’s problem is not his sin itself; his problem is his lack of right standing with God and that position becomes the cause of his sin nature. So, the answer to the age-old question, “Do we sin because we are sinners or are we sinners because we sin?” is the former. We sin because we do not have “right standing with God”. Since we do not have right standing with God, every decision we make falls short of His glory and is sin.

Jesus tells His disciples that it is necessary for Him to leave so that the Father can send the comforter. He has been with the disciples but the comforter who is the Holy Spirit will come to them and take up residence in them correcting the problem created when God put man outside the garden. ^[11] The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the new born believer corrects man’s position of not being rightly related to God that Adam’s sin caused and man is given right standing with God again.

This position simplifies salvation. It sets the stage for a solid foundation for a theological position to rest. This simple position explains the presence of sin and its remedy. Without Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a repentant heart, there is no possibility of one having right standing with God and without this right standing, everything an individual does falls short of God’s glory and is sin. Nothing a person does outside a position of being rightly related to God brings glory to Him and that in and of itself becomes the essence of man’s sin nature and it also explains the remedy for that sin nature. With this in mind, God’s initiative in redemption is solely set to correct this problem every individual has that is not rightly related to Him. Revelation and reconciliation are God’s initiatives in making the redemptive provisions He has set into place available to the individual who is not rightly related to Him. Jesus’ invitation to “Come unto Me and I will give you rest” ^[12] sums up the simplicity of the gospel appeal. Revelation and reconciliation echo this invitation and both demand a response. Redemption itself demands a response. The responses to redemption, revelation, and reconciliation are not God’s to make; they are responses the lost individual must make.

Consider the appeal God makes through Moses to the children of Israel in Deuteronomy 30. Israel is in exile because of their rebellion. Listen to the promise He gives to them:

“Now it shall come to pass, when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God drives you, 2 and you return to the Lord your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul, 3 that the Lord your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the Lord your God has scattered you. 4 If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you. 5 Then the Lord your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it. He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers. 6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Obviously, two things are clear. God’s intentions are clear. His will is to return the people and restore their land. It does not matter where people have been exiled to, He promises He will bring them back for nothing is impossible with Him! The second truth that is crystal clear involves the response of the people. This is a conditional promise. Return to the Lord and God will restore the land. God’s response is conditioned by the response of the people. His choice is clear; He will respond to their choice to His instruction and invitation. Look at what Moses writes in verses 9-10.

“For the Lord will again rejoice over you for good as He rejoiced over your fathers, 10 if you obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law, and if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” There is no ambiguity in this invitation. God’s response is conditioned by the people’s response to His initiative and invitation.

Calvinists will agree at this point. They know the Bible commands the lost to repent and believe when it comes to being beneficiaries of the promises and provisions of God. The difference comes in the “how” that repentance and believing faith takes place or is made possible. They will argue God and God alone enables the lost person to repent and believe. Well, Deuteronomy 30 has something to say about this as well. Moses seems to anticipate that objection. Look at what he writes in verse 11 and following:

11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

God is not going to make this decision for you. Notice the consideration, “that we may hear it and ‘do it’.” It seems that people have sought to make someone else responsible for their plight but it seems clear at least in this text, that Gods Word is near and that is what gives every person the ability to respond and follow that word. Consider the following conditions God sets before the people.

15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, 18 I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess.

God has set two things before all men. He promises two extremes, life and death and good and evil. Walk in His ways and keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments and live and be blessed by the Lord. Walk away from God and worship other gods and serve them and perish. The choice is simple. Notice this choice is not God’s to make; every person must make that choice. It was true in Moses’ day and it is true today. Look at verses 19 and 20:

19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; 20 that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

Choose life. It really is that simple. Every person has the ability to respond to God’s revelatory word and His reconciliatory initiative in redemption.

There is a secondary argument that is often used to justify a regeneration before repentance and believing faith perspective. This position focuses on God’s foreknowledge or omniscience. This philosophical position is based on a concept of omniscience that argues God by necessity knows all things and as such knew who would and would not be saved long before He ever created the world. Obviously, this statement is true. The Bible certainly declares that God is omniscient.

"Known unto God are all His works from the creation"^[13] and "declaring the end from the beginning." ^[14] Since God is omniscient, He knows all things past, present and future. He is omnipotent and as such, what He has set into motion, He will accomplish. The question is, to what role does God’s omniscience play in this redemptive plan God has put into place? The Bible seems to limit God’s eternal purpose to the plan He has established as opposed to the implementation of that plan where the eternal destiny of men’s souls is concerned. In this position, God and God alone is solely responsible for the terms and conditions and the implementation of the plan of redemption itself while the implementation is based on the response of men to the terms and conditions set by God. Simply put, God will do what He promises He will do.

Consider for example the statement that Christ is the Lamb of God “slain from the foundation of the world.” ^[15] Notice what Paul wrote in Titus chapter 1: “Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, 2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, 3 but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior;” Here it is clear God’s plan is what is predetermined and there is absolutely no reference to those who respond to it as being part of that predetermined plan. In fact, Paul says that the plan is made available to those who by faith acknowledge the truth that brings hope of eternal life which God who cannot lie promised in His Word through preaching. If God’s plan all along was to simply give eternal life to a select group of people that He Himself chose to save, Paul would have had no need to write what he wrote here. God’s plan of salvation is what He Himself has established to benefit those who by faith accept the terms He has established and those individuals will reap the benefits of the provisions He has promised for doing so.

Paul says salvation has come by the “power of God who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began.” Again, it is clear God’s redemptive plan was from the beginning of time and there is no mention whatsoever of that plan including those who would or would not be beneficiaries of that plan. It seems clear that Paul saw his responsibility as one of making the promises of God’s redemptive plan known to men so that they could be recipients of the provisions of that plan. Paul articulates a strong confidence in the promises and provisions he has “believed in” and says he is persuaded that God is “able to keep that which he has committed to Him until that day.” ^[16]

In Acts 2:23 God’s eternal plan is for Jesus to be crucified and then resurrected. In John 12, Jesus tells His disciples that “The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified. 24 Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. 25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor.” Once again, it is clear that God’s plan of redemption centered around Jesus’s death on the cross.^[17] He says that His death will produce much life. He goes on to say that those who live are those who “serve Him and follow Him.” “If anyone serves Me” Jesus said, “him My Father will honor.” Those who accept the promises given by God will reap the benefits He promises. There is no indication that God is the one who makes that determination for any individual. His involvement in the redemptive process centers solely around doing what He promises He will do for those who respond by faith to the redemptive conditions and provisions He Himself has put into place.

In His unlimited foreknowledge, God knew when He created Adam in His own image, giving him the choice to choose, he would make the wrong choice and that choice would require a sacrifice on God’s part to save mankind from eternal separation from Him. This precedent is clearly portrayed in the Old Testament sacrificial system. Why did God allow sin to take place in the first place? He could have prevented it from happening. He could have certainly kept Eve safe from the temptation she encountered with the serpent. In her own defense, she told God “the serpent tempted me.” In doing so, she indirectly blamed God for her bad choice because God created the serpent. Adam did the same thing in saying “the woman YOU GAVE ME, gave me the fruit and I did eat.”

By giving man the choice to choose, the potential to choose something other than God’s perfect will was no doubt a foregone conclusion; it was inevitable. It must be understood that this does not make God the author of sin. He did not cause Adam to choose to stand with Eve as opposed to standing with Him. God did not create sin; He did create life with the potential to sin. One could argue that life, like love, is not even possible if there is no possibility of rejection or failure. Instead of prohibiting the sin, God chose to provide a remedy for the sinner.

Ephesians 3:9-10, "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ; to the intent (purpose) that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God." God set His redemptive plan into place by allowing men to sin and Christ to go to the cross to pay the penalty for that sin. Thus, as He allows sin to take place He also provides a plan of escape in the death of His Son on the cross. Perhaps one could see the work of God in redemption saying the same thing He said to the Apostle Paul who prayed three times for God to remove the thorn in the flesh that he had as God told him, “I will not remove the thorn but I will give you grace to find victory over it.” ^[18] God did much the same thing by not preventing sin but instead He provided a remedy for it.

When God created man giving him the choice to choose, He knew man would fail and fall. It is clear God did this with love in mind. God loves perfectly. It is possible for God to love men apart from and independent of his love for Him in return. John 3:16 would be a perfect answer to that statement. “God so loved the world He gave His only begotten son that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish but have everlasting life.” God loved the world with no regard to the lovability of the world. He loved the whole world with no thought of any reciprocal love being given back to Him. He loved the world unconditionally. Man does not have this capability. Man loves because God first loved Him. Man is created in the image of God and as such inherits or reflects this ability to love. Man’s love is based on God’s love for him and he is able to love because he has been given that capacity by God. Because man has been given that capacity to love, the choice that man is ultimately to make is “who his love is to be directed toward;” will he love the world that God created for him or will he love the God who created that world for him?

Take Adam’s choice in the garden. God created the garden and placed him in it. Adam understood that. God created Eve and gave her to him. He understood that. God told him he could do what he wanted to do with one exception; he was not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam understood that. He understood love; he experienced love in its truest sense. He loved God and because of his love for God, he loved Eve. This is seen in the illustration men use today of being rightly related to God in a vertical sense, sets the stage for him being rightly related to others on a horizontal sense. Adam was rightly related to God and therefore was rightly related to Eve, the serpent caught Eve all alone. Adam was nowhere to be found. This was a choice she made or perhaps a choice both she and Adam made together. Eve succumbed to temptation and ate of the fruit God said not to eat of. Interestingly enough, humanity is not damned at this point. God told Adam, “in the day that YOU eat of the fruit of the tree, YOU shall die.” This is important because Jesus is the second Adam because the first Adam failed and fell.

Eve brought the fruit to Adam and the Bible says “he did eat.” There is no serpent. There is no deceptive influence. Why did Adam eat of the fruit Eve held in her hand? The Bible does not say. Consider Adam’s dilemma. Eve has eaten the forbidden fruit. Will she die? Adam had a choice to make. If she dies, I will die with her. Perhaps his choice was based on his “perfect” love for her. Ironically, Jesus’ decision to go to the cross because of His love for mankind corrected the decision Adam made because of his love for his wife that God had given to Him. Man’s fall was based on a decision Adam made; man’s redemption was based on a decision God made. God gave Adam a simple choice to live forever in the garden. He chose poorly. He has given fallen man another choice to live forever in Christ Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross. The first choice was to avoid the tree or die; the latter choice was to look to the tree and live. Both choices involve God’s foreknowledge; both choices involve man’s response.

What about God’s foreknowledge and His omniscience? Those characteristics must demand a knowledge on God’s part of who would and would not be saved “before the foundation of the world.” If God knew who would be saved, then those He knew would be saved had to repent and believe or else God would have been wrong. This would seem to be a logical statement that must be true. Understand however, this is a statement that is logically true from a human perspective. Those who hold this position must at least acknowledge two very important concessions.

First, from a human perspective, omniscience and foreknowledge apply to God and not to men. Since men are not omniscient, he must be careful using his limited understanding of the concept to define or limit a limitless God who is omniscient. That is a true statement. The second concession that must be acknowledged is the fact that God’s knowledge of what someone WILL do does not mean that He Himself has anything to do with it taking place. God’s foreknowledge of what will take place does not demand a deterministic causation position on His part. There is a third concession. God’s omniscience does not necessarily demand a foreknowledge of everything; He can choose to know what He wants to know. When it comes to the choices men make with respect to repentance and believing faith, God could have chosen not to know who would and would not repent. To deny this, would in and of itself deny His limitless character and place limits on God’s ability to do what He might choose to otherwise do. Just because it does not make logical sense on a human level does not mean it does not make sense on a Divine level. It is simply not possible to place human limits on a limitless God. It is not possible for a man who is not omniscient to understand how that characteristic plays out on God who is omniscient.

In looking at the cross, there is this argument that Jesus’ death on the cross secured the salvation for those who would be saved and His death could not have secured salvation for those who would not be saved. In the same light, Jesus died for the sins of those who would be saved and He could not have died for the sins of those who would not be saved. Once again, this popular Calvinistic position has to be understood as a philosophical position that takes certain liberties with pre-conceived tenets the Bible does not present. While it is true that the tenets themselves may be Scripturally defended, the conclusions that men draw using those tenets are not necessarily true. Just because A and B and C are true does not mean D is equally true. This is a major problem theological positions must avoid.

It is true that some men will be saved and many will not be saved. It is true that Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for sin. It is equally true that Jesus’ death on the cross paid the penalty for those sinners who would be saved. To point to the validity of these statements and then conclude that Jesus could not have died on the cross for those who would not be saved is an illogical, philosophical conclusion. The fact that the first three statements are true does not mean the fourth is true. For the sake of argument, suppose this position is true. There are serious problems that arise that stand alongside the problems this position seeks to satisfy.

Calvinism argues God chose in eternity past who would be saved and be beneficiaries of His grace. They posit Jesus’ death on the cross paid the penalty for the sin of the elect and only the elect. It is inconceivable that Jesus could have died to pay the penalty for the person who would not repent and by faith believe, for in doing so Jesus would have paid the penalty for that person’s sin and then by being condemned to an eternity in hell, that person would pay the penalty for his sin again. Since the second reality is obvious, the justification for the argument of Jesus dying for the sin of the elect alone is that Jesus could not have paid the penalty for the person’s sin who ends up spending eternity in hell.

Here is the problem the other side of this argument presents. If Jesus’ death on the cross was effectual and the salvation of a few was indeed completed at that time, as Calvinism contends, then there would be no need for repentance. A person whose sin was paid for at Calvary would be born forgiven since his sin would already have been remedied and at no time would he be in danger of being separated from God. That individual would not be born a ‘sinner in need of a Savior.” If his salvation was secured at the cross, he would be saved at that point and would belong to God and there would also be no need for an evangelistic appeal.

The obvious response to this position is that man still needs to repent but God will accomplish what He has purposed in His heart to accomplish. This attempted retort ignores the obvious ramifications of the same system it supports in favor of its adoption. If Jesus paid the penalty for sins of the elect on the cross and the salvation of the elect was secured at that time, then repentance is not necessary. Either the sin was paid for or it was not. It cannot be efficient in one respect and not efficient in another.

One might try to argue that the cross made provision for redemption and that provision becomes efficient when the unbeliever repents and by faith trusts the finished work of Christ on the cross. This is the position Soteriology Simplified will take. In this system, Jesus’ death on the cross is sufficient for all and efficient for those who repent and believe. Now the quandary moves from the efficiency of the cross to the efficacy of election. This will be picked back up at a later time but the point of these introductory remarks on the efficacy of the cross is to point out some of the obvious problems of a system that has been laid out as gospel, but is not as compelling as it might seem to be initially.

Join a discussion group at www.soteriologysimplified.com

How Does A Person Pass From Death Unto Life?

If man’s sin nature is indeed the result of his wrong standing before God, how does God correct this problem? How does an unregenerate individual who is separated from God’s perpetual presence come into God’s presence and experience life as only a relationship with God can provide?

Perhaps the most popular passage of Scripture dealing with one passing from death unto life is set in Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus in John 3. Nicodemus who is a religious teacher and probably very wealthy and very popular came to Jesus and began a conversation with Him only to hear Jesus say to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." ^[19] Much has been written concerning “being born-again”. If it is necessary to be “born-again” in order to see the kingdom of heaven, then more needs to be written on what Jesus meant when He told Nicodemus “you must be born again.” Literally the term “born again” is the translation of two Greek words, γεννάω and ἄνωθεν which mean having been born anew or more probably, from above or from a higher place like heaven or of God. Obviously, Nicodemus took Jesus’ statement to mean again physically because he asked how it would be even possible to enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born again.

Jesus answered in verse 5, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again’.” ^[20] Here Jesus mentions two births; one is of water and the other of Spirit. Some have taken the first to be a direct reference to water baptism and from there the tenet of baptismal regeneration has evolved. It would seem plausible that Jesus’ own statement would provide the more correct rendering since He speaks of that which is flesh is born of flesh and that which is spirit is born of the Spirit; so, being born of water is a direct reference to being born physically and being born of the Spirit is just that, being born spiritually. It is impossible to be born of the Spirit if one has not been born physically; it is impossible to be born again unless one has been born the first time.

Jesus makes a statement in verse 8, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." This verse has been whipped around in more ways than a summer thunderstorm. The wind in Jesus’ illustration here is not a reference to the Holy Spirit as is common practice in the New Testament. It is a reference to the wind. So it is not the Holy Spirit that moves where it wants to go touching the hearts it wants to touch, but rather those who are born of the Spirit are like the wind. Believers hear the sound; they experience the touch of the Holy Spirit but they go where they wish with respect to the convicting and convincing work of the Spirit in and on their sinful hearts. All men need to be born again if they want to see the Kingdom of God.

Nicodemus asks Jesus a very pointed question: How can these things be? Jesus’ answer to Nicodemus is vitally important. He says, “14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. Jesus is making a direct reference to an account that took place during the wilderness wanderings when the people cried out complaining “against God and against Moses: ‘Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and our soul loathes this worthless bread.’ 6 So the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died. 7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, ‘We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord that He take away the serpents from us.’ So Moses prayed for the people. 8 Then the Lord said to Moses, ’Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.’ 9 So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived. ^[21]

Jesus used this event where God saved His children to explain how one was to be born again to see the Kingdom of God. The provision for the salvation of the children of Israel who had been bitten was made by God. All they had to do was look at the bronze serpent raised up on the pole to live.” The provision was provided to those who made the choice to look up. Those who chose to try anything else, died. God did not determine who would “look up; one could certainly conclude that His will was that none perish but that all would look up and live. One thing is clear in this passage. Those who did look up, lived because God did what He said He would do.

“As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life or be born again.” “16 For God so loved the world (that has been bitten by sin and is condemned to pay the penalty for that sin) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” The world in John 3:16 is paralleled by the world in Moses’ day. They sinned against God by calling God’s provisions for them “worthless bread.” They deserved to die; the bread was everything but worthless because it was what had kept them alive. Interestingly enough, it is the Word of God that is the bread of life for men today. ^[22] It was everything but worthless back then and the same is true today as well. God’s provisions for salvation are life giving provisions. Just as God chose to save those in the wilderness who deserved to die, so has He once again made provision for sinful men to live by looking to Jesus and believing in Him. God has lifted Jesus up; all who look up to Him and believe in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.

Jesus continues: 18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ^[23] It is imperative that one keep the illustration in mind as Jesus continues His instruction here. Those who believe are like those who looked up at the serpent on the pole that was raised up for all to see. Those who looked at the serpent lived and those who refused to look up or were not able to look up all died. Those who believe Jesus said are not condemned or no longer condemned but those who do not believe are condemned already. Man’s sin is what condemns him; his belief in Jesus washes away the stain of sin and takes away the penalty and condemnation of sin.

“19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” Light reveals dirt. Dust and dirt are not visible in the dark. Sin does not seem so bad in the dark where no one is looking and no one knows anybody’s name. Light penetrates the darkness and overcomes darkness and reveals things as they are. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." ^[24]

Looking up is the same as looking into the light. Believing in God removes the condemnation that Jesus has come to reveal to sinful men. The light exposes the sin and allows the sinner to look up and see Jesus and find forgiveness and life. Thus, there exists God’s initiatives in salvation: redemption, revelation and reconciliation. All three are highlighted in this passage.

So, how can all this be? How can one believe and have his sin forgiven and his relationship restored to a position of right standing before a Holy and Sovereign God? How can one be born again or “regenerated” to see the Kingdom of God?

The English word “regeneration” is the translation of the Greek word, παλιγγενεσία which is a compound word from πάλιν (again) and γένεσις (birth). It means simply a new birth, a new beginning, a new order. The issue today concerning regeneration or being born-again is not its necessity but rather its place in the salvific process. Some argue regeneration is the end itself and is synonymous with being born again while others argue that regeneration is required for one to be born again. When Jesus told Nicodemus, “you must be born again to see the Kingdom of Heaven” did He mean that being born again made one able to see and understand the Kingdom of God so one could become a child of God or did the new birth Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about, refer to the new birth itself that would allow one to see and experience the Kingdom of God?

To answer that question, the illustration Jesus gave from Numbers would seem to be the best setting to answer this question. Those who looked at the serpent raised up on the pole were instantly healed and saved from death. Their looking up did not allow them to be saved; it saved them. In the same respect, in Jesus’ illustration and instruction to Nicodemus, looking to the Son of Man who was lifted up on the cross saves the one who believes; it does not make salvation possible because one has looked to Jesus; the light of the glorious gospel saves those who believe.

Even this last statement, “the light of the glorious gospel saves those who believe” finds acceptance in the minds of those who propose regeneration prior to or at the least, simultaneous with repentance and saving faith. The issue for those who propose the necessity of regeneration enabling the lost person to be saved really has nothing to do with the individual who believes. For the proponent of regeneration prior to faith, the believer believes because God regenerated him or made him alive so he could make the decision to repent and exercise faith and then be saved. This position is problematic especially where the Numbers reference is concerned. It is clear that those who were saved were those who heard the word of God and did what His Word instructed them to do; namely, look at the serpent raised up on the pole. God did not decide who would look up; the people did. He did not wait until they were all dead and then give some the ability to look up and come alive! The invitation was to all who would, look up and live. Regeneration is the result of looking unto Jesus; regeneration does not allow one to look up and live. Regeneration is new life. It is not the catalyst for new life.

In looking at the issue of regeneration, there is another question that must be asked, “What is the role of the Holy Spirit in regeneration?” If one sees regeneration as being essential for repentance and saving faith, what is the role of the Holy Spirit with respect to regeneration? When does the Holy Spirit take up residence in the lost person’s heart, effectively making that person a child of God?

Paul writes in Ephesians 1 the following statement: “11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. It is clear here that the believer is sealed by the Holy Spirit “after you heard the word of truth, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.”

The Scriptures are clear that the believer’s body is the temple of the indwelling Holy Spirit. ^[25] “5 For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake. 6 And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit, ^[26] Clearly, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the heart of an individual is that which makes him a Christian, an heir of God and a joint heir with Jesus. The question is, if regeneration is different from conversion and conversion is the result of regeneration, there is no indwelling at regeneration but rather after repentance and faith have occurred. This presents a serious theological problem because Romans 8:9 clearly says, “Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.” The one who belongs to God is the one in whom the Spirit of God dwells.

The same is true for regeneration. Regeneration or new life, cannot take place apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. New life is the result of the indwelling Holy Spirit. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” ^[27] “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” ^[28] New life where God is concerned, has everything to do with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In the Calvinist Ordo Salutis, regeneration necessarily precedes repentance and believing faith and posits the indwelling of the Holy Spirit into an unrepentant heart that enables the lost person to THEN repent and believe. The Scriptural mandate is clear; repentance and believing faith bring about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is new life.

Calvinists have responded to this argument by offering a “logical Ordo Salutis” as opposed to a ‘linear Ordo Salutis”. In this response, the events of conversion are so interconnected, that they all happen simultaneously and there is no time lapse so the objection of the Holy Spirit indwelling the unrepentant heart is really a moot argument. While the interconnected argument sounds valid, and the “logical Ordo Salutis” seems solid, the original objection stands. If regeneration is the means that brings about repentance and believing faith, irrespective of the logical or linear argument, and if the indwelling is interconnected to regeneration, then the indwelling is the means of repentance and believing faith in the Calvinist soteriological system and that is Scripturally problematic.

One final observation concerning the validity of regeneration and its relationship to repentance and believing faith is the passage in Romans 1:16, where Paul says, “16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” If Calvinism is correct and God and God alone is the One who decides who will be saved with no merit being sown or given for who an individual is or what that individual may or may not do, and God through regeneration enables the elect to repent and believe, this passage has no relevance at all in God’s plan of salvation.

Calvinism contends that all men are born spiritually dead in their sin. Calvinism contends that men are enslaved to their sin natures and as such they are incapable of choosing God because they cannot do anything contrary to their nature. In order for a person to repent and do something that is obviously contrary to his sinful nature, God must first give him a new nature that will not only allow him to do what he could not formerly do, but this new nature will cause him to repent and believe. Each of the individual components of this argument have their Scriptural justification but the theological position itself is problematic where Romans 1:16 is concerned.

Calvinism contends that God’s efficacious call through regeneration is what not only enables a person to repent but causally brings about repentance and believing faith. Here is where the problem arises. Paul says the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not regeneration. It is the gospel message that enables repentance and belief. It is the gospel that reveals the righteousness of God and brings people “from faith to faith.” The proponent of Calvinism would say, the gospel is the means God uses to bring about regeneration and repentance and believing faith. Here is the problem with that position.

Calvinism builds its theological treatise on the foundation of total depravity and inability. This means that the unregenerate has blinded eyes that cannot see and has deaf ears that cannot hear and a dead heart that cannot respond to the gospel unless and until God opens the blinded eyes and the deaf ears and gives the dead heart new life that can then respond to the gospel. Here is the problem: the gospel is powerless to save the unregenerate because he cannot see the truth nor hear the truth much less respond to it through repentance. If regeneration is essential in any response for the unregenerate, the gospel cannot be the means for regeneration any more than it can be the power of salvation outside of regeneration.

One final thought. Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross carries several analogies in the Scripture. His sacrifice certainly contains an element of substitution. The idea of ransom is presented in the Scripture as well as adoption. There are other terms that are used to talk about the efficacy of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross. It is important to keep these individual references to various aspects of the atonement relative to the context. When an attribute of the atonement is expanded to become an all-inclusive look at the atonement, problems arise. While it is true that there may be an element of substitution seen in the atonement, that does not necessarily mean that substitution itself completely encompasses the totality of the atonement. When theological treatises are written on penal substitution for example, they may or may not be applicable to the position portrayed in Scripture.

Just as God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit each of those are completely true in describing God. However, to speak of God as being completely encapsulated in the Holy Spirit or the Son misses the overarching totality of who God is. While the Son is 100% God, God is not represented fully by attributes manifested in the Son and any discussion of the Son is only a partial discussion of God. The same is true in a discussion of the attributes that are given to describe the atonement but taking those components and building a theology around them, may be reading more into components than was intended where the atonement itself is concerned.

More will be written about these objections and others to the validity of the Calvinistic system of soteriology. Soteriology Simplified will look at the sacrificial system in the Old Testament to set the stage for God’s salvific work completed at the cross. Soteriology Simplified will also take the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that brings about right standing with God and the new life that is God’s gift to all who believe and introduce a simplified soteriological system that demonstrates the work of God that brings men from death unto life.