Syllabus

Purpose

This course is designed to give the student a clear perspective of the Reformed view of salvation as a defensible system in accord with scripture and reason. Grace will become clearly defined. This in turn should have practical consequences in the student’s life by seeing how his relationship with God is meant to function.

Materials

A. The Bible. This course uses the NIV translation, although the student may use other translations as well.

B. The book Unlocking Grace by Roger Smalling, available from Deo Volente Publishers at WWW. Deovolente.com.

C. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), available from various internet sites. However, Great Commission Publications has printed a small and inexpensive parallel version in which the original 1648 English is on one page and the Modern English Study Version on the other.

Note: Students may use the London Baptist Confession of 1689 or the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of 1823 since these are identical with the WCF as to the doctrines under consideration.

Course Content

The course will examine eight doctrines in particular. These are:

The Sovereignty of God, the Depravity of Man, Justification, Election, the Atonement, the Unity of the Church, the Security of the Believer and the believers covenant relationship with God.

Benefits

Upon completion of the course, students will enjoy a new perspective of the grandeur and centrality of God’s grace. This will effect their entire world view, self-concept, manner of prayer, evangelism and relationship with other Christians.

Students will be better prepared to defend key biblical teachings relative to salvation and refute objections, as the Apostle requires elders to do in Titus 1:9:

He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Important note: This manual supplements Unlocking Grace so theology students may deepen their grasp of biblical concepts. I avoid repeating material in the book although some overlapping is inevitable. That is why the manual contains few quotes from Scripture. The book contains all the necessary proof texts.

This is to keep the manual smaller to avoid unnecessary printing costs.

Requirements for correspondence students

50% Final exam

25% Thesis

25% Study Questions. There is a series of questions is at the end of each lesson for the student to answer. As proof the student has read all the reading assignments, he must answer these questions in writing, neatly and legibly. He may do this by hand and then send in the pages. Or, he may photocopy them and send the photocopies. Or, he may type the questions on separate sheets, answer them and turn them in. He should turn these in at the same time he sends in his thesis. The thesis cannot be accepted alone without the accompanying answers to the reading assignments.

Thesis requirements

A ten-page paper is required. The subject must be one of the sub-themes of one of the central doctrines studied in the course.

Example: The chapter in the textbook on Total Inability contains several themes: The fall of Adam and its effects, Free Will and Responsibility, relationship between faith and regeneration and others. Student must chose one of these sub-themes and elaborate it fully. The format should follow standard thesis writing formats, for which various manuals exist on the market.

Do not pad the manuscript with Scripture verses. (Brief one-liners within a paragraph are acceptable.) The text should be in Times format or Times Roman, spaced 1.5. Argumentation in the paper must consist in proper exegesis of Scripture, respecting the rules of Hermeneutics, along with logical and concise theological evidence. The paper need not agree with the viewpoint of the teacher. However, if it is not in agreement, it will be the responsibility of the student to address the points of evidence the teacher has presented to show why they appear defective.

Bachelor level students must read a total of 300 pages of material by the end of the course. Master level students must read 500 pages. (The class textbook, Unlocking Grace may count as 180 pages of this. Articles from the Teachers Manual count, including pages the student has read from the Westminster Confession. The student is responsible for finding additional materials to complete the bibliography requirement.

Evaluation of the thesis is based on the following standards:

· Does the appearance and quality of writing reflect good academic standards?

· Are the arguments presented in a logical and systematic manner?

· Is the exegesis of the biblical texts in agreement with general rules of hermeneutics?

· Does it have an adequate bibliography?

Study questions

The student must fill out all of the Study Questions at the end of each lesson, if the teacher requires this. These must be turned in along with the thesis. However, these do not count as part of the thesis. The Study Questions prove the student has read the manual and done the reading requirements.

Questions in Unlocking Grace

Students are not required to fill out the questions at the end of the chapters in Unlocking Grace. Since many the questions on the final exam are taken from these, the student is wise to peruse them.

Endnotes

Students should read the endnotes. Some exam questions may be based on them because the endnotes contain useful comments.

LESSON 1: Doctrine is Central to Christian Living

Some Christians view doctrine as merely a part of the Christian life, not central. This is illogical because what we believe about ourselves and God will effect how we pray, evangelize or relate to other Christians.

This is why doctrine, particularly about our salvation, was one of the first things the Apostles taught to their new converts according to the Book of Acts. Yet doctrine is not the entirety of the Christian life. Some Christians fall into the opposite error of making doctrine the focus of their lives, neglecting fellowship and prayer.

Notice the balance in Acts 2:42,

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Acts 2:42

Doctrine is an intellectual exercise, fellowship a social one and prayer is communion with God. Doctrine is not communion with God, nor fellowship an intellectual exercise nor prayer a homily on theological precision. Yet all these effect one another and must be in biblical balance.

Why be excited about the doctrines of grace?

They are a strong confirmation of the Christian faith. No human being would have invented a system so damaging to the pride of man. The Bible was composed by many authors in different languages and cultures over a 1600 year period. Yet its teachings are logically consistent, philosophically profound and supremely glorifying to God. Children can grasp the essential point of sovereign grace while theologians explore its depths.

They give unity to the Bible unlike other theological systems.

They accommodate more Biblical data than any other view.

The Doctrines of Grace are provable and defensible.

They contain no logic fallacies as do other systems.

They make sense of Scriptures which otherwise appear strange.

While they do not explain all the mysteries, they do place the mysteries where the Bible places them. This will become clearer when we study the doctrine of Election.

They provide the only possible basis for security of salvation.

They silence the voice of self-condemnation.

Important considerations

Sometimes people view theology as a mere intellectual exercise without practical consequences. Experience shows improved perception of God and of ourselves has effects more far-reaching than any how-to practicum. After this course, the student will never pray quite the same way, think about himself in quite the same light nor worship in the same manner.

Comparisons with other groups are legitimate

This manual occasionally compares these doctrines with the views of other Evangelical movements. Some see this as unkind or intolerant. We endeavor to make comparisons in the kindest manner possible. Nevertheless, we are openly Reformed in our theological perspective for reasons we believe to be defensible.

Circumstances exist in which such comparisons and analysis may be inappropriate. One of the purposes of a theology course however, is to study these distinctives. By so doing, we are NOT suggesting those who differ with us are insincere or evil. Theology teachers consider themselves free to say why they believe others are mistaken. They are NOT implying they think those who differ from them are necessarily bad persons.

In theology, the Doctrines of Grace are part of a branch of study called Soteriology, which means study of salvation. (Greek: Soteria= salvation+Logoi= study of.) This in turn fits into the larger scheme of Systematic Theology of which the purpose is to compare theological systems to see which fits best the Biblical data and why.

Theological inferences are valid as evidence

The Scriptures sometimes do not expound a doctrine in plain language. We must deduce it from clues in the text. The Trinity is one of these. Most of the evidence on the deity of Christ is like this. No Bible writer undertook to expound these doctrines in detail. Yet they are plainly biblical and essential to Christian theology as a system. We call these theological inferences, which means deductions drawn from evidence in the biblical text though not stated outright.

The Westminster Confession, Chapter 1, Article 6, expresses it this way:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory and man’s salvation,… is either expressly stated in Scripture or by good and necessary inference may be deduced from Scripture…

Some people feel a doctrine is not valid if based on inferences or if the name for it is not found in the Bible. This is irrational. The validity of a doctrine depends on whether enough evidence exists to compel the conclusion. Throughout this course, therefore, the student must evaluate whether the evidence compels the conclusions.

This means it is valid to give a name to a concept even though the name is not found in the Bible...like the word Trinity. Some of the issues we study in this course have no theological term given to them in the bible, so theologians give them one. This does not weaken their value

From this lesson we learned:

· Doctrine is central to Christian living.

· Though central, doctrine is not the only key aspect of Christian living.

· It must be balanced with fellowship and prayer.

· Doctrine of salvation was one of the first things the apostles taught their new converts.

· It is appropriate to discuss theological differences between groups of evangelicals to expose the weaknesses in some viewpoints.

· We should always strive for system in our theology, avoiding contradictions and keeping in harmony with Scripture.

· Inferences drawn from Scripture are valid as theological evidence.

Study Questions for Lesson 1

Doctrine is central to Christian living because:

The believer must keep in balance three aspects of Christian experience. These are:

Some reasons for being excited about the Doctrines of Grace are:

Comparisons with the viewpoints of other groups is legitimate because:

Striving for system in our theology is good because:

What verses in 1Timothy and Titus indicate the importance of sound doctrine?

Give another example, other than the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, of a Bible doctrine not explicitly stated in Scripture but which Christians hold, based on inferences in the text.

What term do theologians use to describe the study of doctrines related to salvation and from what Greek words is the word derived?

Pre-Class Reading:

Read Pages 7-30 in Unlocking Grace.

Read in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) Chapter 2 entirely and Chapter 3, Articles 1&2.

LESSON 2: Theological Grounds for the Sovereignty of God

The term Sovereignty of God refers to His absolute control over everything, including mankind. It also means reality is the product of decrees He made before the foundation of the world.

First evidence: Sovereign is part of his name

An Old Testament name

In the Old Testament, the term ADONAI is used 429 times. [1] Adon means ‘Lord’ or ‘Master’, one who is in charge. [2] Ai is an emphatic suffix, implying ‘really in control’. Or, it may be used as a personal possessive suffix. [3] Therefore it means ‘He who is in absolute control’. Or, ‘He who is absolute master over me, as in ‘my Lord’. In the NKJV it is rendered ‘Lord God’. In the NIV, more correctly as, ‘Sovereign Lord’.

A New Testament name

In the New Testament, the word despotes occurs ten times of which five refer to God and five to human slave masters. We derive the English word despot from it, although in the first century it did not necessarily have the negative connotation the English term has. It means “one who holds complete power or authority over another.” (Lexicon definition from Louw&Nida) [4]

When used in reference to God it is always translated in the NIV, correctly, as “Sovereign Lord” in the NIV. Used in Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24 ; 2Pet.2:1; Jude 4; Rev. 6:10

Second Evidence: Natural Divine Attributes

There exist three attributes of God which theologians call natural attributes, for lack of a better name. They refer to characteristics not directly related to character. These are Omniscience, all knowing, Omnipotence, all powerful, and Omnipresence, present everywhere. We assume the student knows about these attributes and is convinced of them. If in doubt, refer to the proof texts in Chapter One of Unlocking Grace.

Many Christians have an anthropomorphic view of God, which means they think of God as a big human. Some suppose God is like a benign heavenly grandfather who wants everybody to have a good time and would never harm anyone. Understanding the three natural attributes of God helps eliminate from our minds such humanistic concepts of God. Unless we discard such notions once and for all, we will experience difficulty in grasping some of the doctrines we are about to study.

How do these three natural attributes prove the Sovereignty of God? Suppose something happened outside of God’s control. It could only be for one of three reasons: Either He did not know about it, or He lacked the power to prevent it, or He was not present at the time.

Conversely, if a person denies the absolute Sovereignty of God, then he denies by implication one or more of His natural attributes. This, of course, is heresy.

Even if nothing else existed in the Bible about the Sovereignty of God, His natural attributes would be sufficient grounds to declare it an article of faith.

Third Evidence: The Attribute of Immutability and the Divine Decrees

The term immutability means unchanging. It is found twice in the Bible in Heb.6:17-18.

Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 17 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. Heb. 6:18

Newer translations use unchanging because the word is unfamiliar to some. In a way, this is unfortunate because it has the idea of irresistibility and infallibility. It refers not only to a plan God has devised but also to His person. James expresses this thought with,

he Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. James 1:17

Logically, if He could be changed, He would not be sovereign. Conversely, if He is unchanging, He must be sovereign.

Immutability of God’s “Counsels”

Note God’s counsel is immutable in Heb.6:17. This word counsel in Greek is boulē and means ‘plan’ or ‘purpose’. This means His plans and purposes do not change any more than does His Person. Neither are they resistible successfully by man. If they were, He could not guarantee the fulfillment of His promises, as described in the verses above.

Sometimes the Scriptures use the words purpose and counsel to describe God’s immutability of will when it comes to His plans and decisions. The concept of God never changing what He has planned and permits nothing to stop Him is called in theology, Immutability of Divine Decrees, or, Immutability of God’s will. It means when God decides to do something, nothing can resist Him. (See Unlocking, P.16 for examples.)

He allows His commandments to be broken. He does not allow His plans to be thwarted. If He did, He could not keep His promises and therefore would not be sovereign. The diagram illustrates.

(See Unlocking, P.15-16 for a fuller explanation.)

Fourth Evidence: God Owns Everything

Did God lose control and ownership of the earth when Adam fell into sin? Some Christian groups assert He did. Presumably God gave the earth to Adam, who in turn gave it to the devil. God is supposedly struggling to get it back, using the church as His instrument. The absurdity of this becomes clear in view of Ps. 24:1:

The earth is the LORD’S, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it…

Other Verses are:

· The Earth: Ge.14:19,22; Le.25:23; Ex.9:29 19:5; Deut:14; Jos.3:11,13, 2:11; IChr.29:11; Job 41:11; Ps.24:1, 89:11; Is.54:5; Lu.10:21;

· Animals: Ps.50:10;

· People: Ez.18:4; Ps. 24:1; 22:28; Acts 17:24

Fifth Evidence: Examples of Divine Control

The Bible abounds in examples of God’s intervention in nature, the affairs of government and in even in the thoughts and wills of people. Even without the other evidences, His sovereignty could be deduced from these.

(See Unlocking Grace, P.20-23 on this point)

Conclusion

It follows from these attributes that God is the only autonomous being in the universe. This important theological term means absolutely self-ruled. It is a stronger word than independent. As applied to God, it means the causes for His actions and decisions are found only Himself.

Conversely, no created thing can be truly autonomous because nothing can escape His omniscience and omnipotence. Whatever degree of freedom of will mankind enjoys is limited by divine decrees.

From this lesson we learned:

· Certain of God’s names include the idea of Sovereignty.

· Certain divine attributes make the Sovereignty of God inevitable.

· God’s decrees are immutable. This implies sovereignty.

· God’s ownership over all the earth and its inhabitants implies sovereignty.

· Biblical examples of God’s control over nature, nations and individuals indicate His sovereignty.

· God is the only autonomous being in the universe. He governs everything else, including the limitations on the freedom of His creatures.

Study Questions for Lesson 2

In your own words, define the term, Sovereignty of God.

Describe what we mean by saying the Sovereignty of God is an absolute.

Two of God’s names, one in Hebrew and one in Greek, include the idea of sovereignty. What are these words and what do they mean?

Explain some of the consequences a believer may incur by not believing in the Sovereignty of God.

The main evidences for the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God are:

Find a scriptural example of God’s sovereign control over:

(Note: Do not use the examples given in Unlocking Grace.)

Nature

Nations

Besides the word immutable found in Hebrews 6, what two biblical words do the Scriptures use to express the idea of the immutability of God’s will of purpose?

Explain why God’s three attributes prove He is the only autonomous being in the universe.

Pre-Class Reading: WCF Chapter 5, Articles 1-4.

LESSON 3: The Doctrine of Providence, Means and the Problem of Evil

Occasionally, God’s power intervenes directly as in the resurrection of Jesus, turning water into wine or at times, divine healing. We call these miracles. However, miracles are very rare. God ordinarily works indirectly, using forces of nature, people and circumstances. Whether with miracles or without them, it is the same sovereign God governing His creation. We call this idea of divine government, providence.

The idea of Providence includes the concept of God working indirectly. He hides Himself behind people and things, working through them to accomplish His purposes. He uses means to the end. This indirect way of working has a name. It is called, The Doctrine of Means. It is an important element within the whole concept of Providence.

Nearly everything God does, He does indirectly. God is certainly a God of miracles. Yet even in miracles He usually works through something. When God parted the Red Sea, He used a strong east wind blowing all night. When He saves souls, He uses preaching. When He communicates truth, He does it by His Word. Apart from the resurrection of Christ, or some of the miracles of Jesus, it is hard to find miracles that did not employ something or someone as a means.

The term means is like the word tool. A tool is an instrument we use to accomplish a task. If we eat spaghetti, we use a fork. The fork is a tool. It is the means for eating spaghetti.

It is possible to eat spaghetti without a fork. We can eat it directly or with some other utensil. We would sound silly if we said we were dependent on forks, without which we could never eat spaghetti. We would sound equally silly by supposing forks to be worthless because it is possible to do without them.

So with God. He has a very large toolbox full of means at His disposal to accomplish His will. As sovereign God, He is free to use the tools or dispense with them as He wishes. As we study this course, we may find means in His toolbox we did not expect to be there.

The WCF expresses it like this:

In His ordinary providence, God makes use of means, yet he is free to work without, above and against them as He pleases. WCF Chapter 5, Art.3 (This expresses the idea of God normally working through things and people. Yet He can ignore these and do miracles directly if He wants or even supersede natural law if He pleases.)

Martin Luther was thinking of this when he said God is the hidden God who reveals Himself. [5]

The Doctrine of Means is an essential balance to the concept of the Sovereignty of God. We can state it this way: Yes, God is sovereign ...indirectly. Without this important doctrine, we would fall into fatalism, like the idea, whatever will be will be. Laziness can result it we fail to apply the means God provides to do His work. He uses these means to accomplish His sovereign will though He is never dependent on them.

The problem of evil

The Bible shows by numerous examples how God permits evil to produce a greater good. We do not always see the greater good. But we have enough scriptural examples to accept the principle by faith at the times and places where we are unable to see the outcome. This is the Bible answer to the question of Sovereignty of God and evil.

The best scriptural example of God’s sovereignty over evil is in the crucifixion of Jesus. Our redemption resulted from this great injustice. Yet those who did it are guilty before God of unspeakable evil and will be punished for it. This is true even though God ordained the time and circumstances surrounding the people involved.

This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. Acts 2:23

In this sense, evil itself becomes one of many tools God uses as a means to accomplish His purposes. The existence of evil, therefore, is no proof against His sovereignty, His providence or His goodness. Instead, God’s ability to bring good out of evil proves His sovereignty.

See Unlocking Grace, P.25 for other examples of God using evil to accomplish His good purposes.

The idea of permission

Some people explain the existence of evil by the simplistic idea of divine permission. This is fine up to a point, as long as we avoid the impression of a God who is entirely passive in some things. God is passive in nothing whatsoever. He never sits back and lets things just happen however they might.

God permitted Jesus to be crucified. Yet everything about it, including the people involved and all the circumstances, were controlled and limited by God. Divine permission never means God took His hands off of things and let them just happen. Though permission is a correct concept, it must never be divorced from His providential government of all things.

He allows people to do evil, while limiting and governing the circumstances surrounding the evil done. In this way, though evil does not proceed from God, He remains sovereign. See WCF, Church.5, Art.4 as a good expression of this concept.

Philosophical attacks on the providence of God

A common objection to Christianity by skeptics is based on the existence of evil. The reasoning is, “If God is good and also sovereign how could He permit evil? Therefore God does not exist.”

This argument assumes good has a real existence apart from God. Yet the entire concept of good is based on the assumption of the existence of a good God. The skeptic here is practicing circular reasoning, using a concept, (good), which is derived from God, to refute the existence of God. The question itself is self-contradictory.

For more refutations of skeptic arguments based on the existence of evil, see Smalling’s article at: “How Could A Good God Permit Evil?” http://www.smallings.com/english/Essays/Evil.html

From this lesson we learned:

· Providence refers to God’s government over everything in His creation.

The doctrine of means refers to God acting indirectly, using things and people to accomplish His purposes.

· Evil is one of the means He uses to accomplish His purposes. Yet He is not the cause of evil.

· Though God permits evil, He is not passive in its development. He governs the circumstances and conditions in which people do evil, limiting their options in various ways. Thus, the existence of evil does not contradict the providence of God nor is God the author of evil.

Attacks on the providence of God because of the existence evil are without substance.

Study Questions for Lesson 3

The term Providence signifies:

The Doctrine of Means refers to:

Give a Bible example of God doing a miracle, yet using a means to do it.

Give two biblical examples of God using evil to accomplish His good purposes (other than the crucifixion of Christ.)

Skeptic attacks on God, using the existence of evil, are insubstantial because:

Pre-Class readings for Lesson Four:

Read Chapter Two in Unlocking Grace.

Read in WCF Chapters 6&9 entirely and Chapter 16, Articles 1&7

Read Romans 3:9-20 and Romans 5:12-21

LESSON 4: The Doctrine of Total Depravity

Definitions

Total Depravity means sin controls all the faculties of a sinner, so he is unable to will or do anything to convert himself to Christ or prepare himself for conversion. Only a miracle of God through the gospel can enable the sinner to chose Christ. .

Implications

This doctrine is interesting because it touches on elements of human nature such as free will, the mind and perceptions. Moreover, Total Depravity intertwines with other biblical teachings like the fall of Adam, regeneration and election. This lesson is too brief to cover all of these, so the student should try to Four through Six as a unit.

We study free will and man’s responsibility in the next lesson. This lesson will support from Scripture our definition of Total Depravity.

Total Depravity, does NOT mean sinners are as wicked as possible nor even want to be. Man has not fallen to the level of demons. This would be utter depravity. We believe God’s benevolence prevented man from falling to those depths. By total, we mean all human faculties, including free will, are infected by sin and under its domination. By depravity we mean nothing in a sinner is acceptable to God, including good works or virtues, since these proceed from a corrupted source...mans sinful heart.

In recent years, some theologians have proposed the term TOTAL INABILITY. This avoids giving the impression we think people are as bad a demons. However, this terminology could also be misunderstood. Some may assume God the source of the inability rather than the corruption of man. Either term is acceptable, though both require explanations.

We recommend the student use Total Depravity to counterbalance the influence of modern humanism which asserts the goodness of man. It strikes deliberately at human pride and self-righteousness. In view of biblical teaching about man’s sinfulness, this term seems appropriate.

(See Unlocking, P. 32-33 for complete definitions.)

The issue: Did Adam fall beyond his ability to believe and repent on his own initiative? The two main branches of theology, Reformed and Arminian [6] , differ sharply on this point. The Arminian view claims God stopped the fall short of the point where man would lose the ability to generate faith, love and repentance out of his free will. The Reformed view sees man as fallen below that point. We will examine the biblical evidence.

First evidence: The Fall of Mankind, Romans Chapter Five

Paul describes the fall of Adam in Romans Chapter Five. (The word “Adam” means “mankind” in Hebrew.) He mentions four things we inherited from Adam: Sin, death, judgment and condemnation.

No human faculty escaped these effects. Did this include man’s free will? It is unnecessary to single out the will of man to show it also became bound by sin. It is sufficient to show the entire human organism as fallen.

Adam’s sin represented a declaration of autonomy from his Creator. In theology, we call this attitude autonomy. It means self-ruled, as opposed to being governed by God. Autonomy includes the idea of having no other cause than itself.

Apparently Adam assumed autonomy was possible. It is not. How could anything become independent of an all-knowing and all-powerful Being? One would have to be equal to God Himself to manage that. It was the ultimate in senseless attitudes. It still is.

Adam’s fall did grant him the freedom he expected. It caused bondage to sin instead. Yet even this bondage was not the worst effect of the fall. The worst was the delusion he had succeeded. This delusion persists in sinners to this day.

Autonomy from God became the entire governing principle of the fallen human nature. This nature, we call the Adamic nature because we derived it from Adam. [7] The Bible usually refers to it by terms like the flesh or carnal.

Morality, religion and good works are all perfectly acceptable to the Adamic nature as long as they do not threaten its autonomy. Sinners gladly participate in strict religions, lofty philosophies or great works of philanthropy...as long as these are under their control and do not require genuine submission to God’s authority.

Second Evidence: Spiritual Death, Ephesians 2:1-3

Paul apparently alludes to the divine threat in Genesis 2:17 to Adam for when you eat of it you will surely die. Though Adam did not die physically that day, he died spiritually in his relationship with God and his

ability to obey Him. Paul describes this bondage as:

· Following the conduct of the world.

· Controlled by Satan.

· Fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind. (Greek literally: doing the will of the flesh. This means the flesh determines the condition of the will. The term mind here, NOOS, includes perceptions. Paul alludes to the perceptions of the mind as controlled by sin so the mind perceives the lusts of the flesh as preferable. The will follows suit.)

· A nature deserving of wrath.

The intent of the passage is to show why a sinner is no more able to escape from his condition than a dead man can resurrect himself.

Third Evidence: Effect of Sin on the Mind

Scripture depicts the mind as enslaved and controlled by sin and Satan. We can assume this includes the will since the will is a function of the mind.

The natural man cannot receive the things of God

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Cor. 2:14

Satan has blinded the minds of unbelievers

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, 2Cor.4:4

The understanding is darkened

They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Eph. 4:18

The carnal mind is unable to submit to the law of God

…the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Rom. 8:7

The sinners will is bound by the devil so they cannot come to their senses without God granting the gift of repentance

Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 25 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. 2Tim. 2:26

According to these verses, the mind of the sinner has a perception problem the Bible expresses as darkness or blinded. The devil controls the sinner’s will by controlling his perceptions. The sinner perceives the things of God as foolishness because he is blind to his moral condition.

Fourth Evidence: The Carnal Nature, Romans 3:9-20

Paul addresses the condition of all unsaved people as being under sin. This means under the control of sin.

Without Christ, sinners cannot:

· Be righteous. Even the good works of the unsaved are as filthy rags, unacceptable to God. [8]

· Understand their moral condition. (The Greek term understand refers to insight. None have spiritual insight into their condition without Christ, although they may understand the fundamentals of the gospel.)

· Seek after God. (Religious sinners seek to establish their own righteousness. See Romans 10:3.)

· Do any good acceptable to God. The New Testament defines good as obedience to God. Sinners do good works as substitutes for submission rather than signs of submission. All the works of sinners, however good in themselves, proceed from a corrupted source, his sinful nature. If a sinner really wanted to be good, he would do the first thing God commands him to do...repent and believe in Jesus. (See Unlocking, P.38-41

· Fear God. If they really feared Him, they would seek to please Him.

· Experience peace with God.

Paul is talking about sinners before God begins to draw them through the gospel. When God draws a sinner by the gospel, his perceptions begin to change. Occasionally we encounter a sinner who says he is seeking God. This could be sincere. God may be drawing them by opening their perception through the Gospel. In Lesson Six, well see how this works.

Conclusions

From the abundant biblical evidence, we conclude the unsaved are unable to will or do anything that contributes to their salvation or prepares them for conversion. Their will chooses wrongly because their perceptions are blinded by sin and controlled by Satan. Therefore they perceive themselves as good, spiritual things as foolishness and God as not worth seeking. They see no reason to fear God and think their lack of peace is due to a lack of pleasures.

In the following lesson we will consider whether the term free will is an apt description of this state.

From this lesson we learned:

· Without God working through the gospel, sinners are unable to will or do anything to contribute to their salvation.

· Through Adam’s fall mankind inherited sin, death, judgment and condemnation.

· The mind of man, which includes his perceptions and his will, are blinded by sin and Satan so he cannot choose submission to God.

· The carnal nature of man contains no quality that could lead him to obey God.

· None of the good works of a sinner are ultimately good because they are generated from a corrupted source, his carnal nature.

· Sinners will do good works of all sorts. Without grace, the one thing they will not do is repent and believe the gospel.

Pre-class reading: Review again Chapter 9 from WCF.
Study Questions for Lesson 4

What is the difference between Total Depravity and Utter Depravity?

What are the four things mankind inherited from Adam according to Romans Five?

What are the four categories of evidence for the doctrine of Total Depravity?

Describe in your own words the effects of sin on the unsaved mind.

What are the differences between the way an unsaved person perceives himself versus the way he really is. Use scriptural proofs.

Why does the Bible say there are none who do goodeven though unsaved people often do good works?

Pre-Class Reading: Review again Chapter 9 from WCF.

LESSON 5: Free Will, the Biblical View

Free will has been the storm center of controversy for centuries. Volumes have been written on it and heated debates continue in theological circles.

Much of the heat dissipates when the terms are clearly defined: What is a will? What is meant by free? Is there a connection between free will and responsibility? Free from what ? Free to do what? Does the will govern us or are we governed by some other faculty?

We find little controversy over the definition of will. All agree it is the faculty by which we make choices. The disagreements concern the meaning of free.

Theologians distinguish between natural liberty and moral liberty. Natural liberty refers to ordinary decisions involving our material welfare and human relationships. What we eat for breakfast, who we marry, whether to continue reading this page or what to watch tonight on television, all fall into the category of natural liberty.

The term natural liberty includes certain religious activities. Unsaved people can memorize Scripture, learn hymns or join a church. Sinners have a conscience and daily make positive moral choices. They can choose between telling the truth or a lie.

No main branch of theology denies the natural freedom of the will. [9]

Moral freedom is where controversy erupts. The following questions highlight the issue:

Apart from sovereign grace, is fallen man able to submit to God, trust in Christ and desire holiness as his supreme value? Can his free will generate faith and repentance?

A Clue: What is a human being?

In Genesis 1:27 we read, So God created man in His own image; The Bible defines a human being as a creature made in God’s image. We can say image of God means a human being.

Suppose two angels were talking and one asked what God is like. The other might reply, “Over there is an example. Its called a human being.” The term image of God defines our essence as beings.

As God’s image, we are responsible to reflect what He is. Since this is the reason for human existence, our responsibility can never change.

God does not have a body. He is infinite. So the image of God must refer to His internal nature. Is God absolutely holy? [10] Does God have a free will? Of course! He is the most free being in the universe. Can God lie? No. (See Titus 1:2) Why not? Nothing in His holy character finds a lie attractive. He cannot want to.

Definition? Moral free will means absolute purity and freedom from sin because of a holy nature.

From this, we see what cosmic treason it is to be anything but holy. Unholiness is a denial of our core essence and the supreme insult to our Creator.

The notion of moral free will as a faculty suspended between good and evil is fiction. Moral neutrality does not exist.

We have a hint of this in Romans 6.

But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 17 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. Rom. 6:18

The main point

The will reflects the true nature of the person. In this sense, it is not the ruling faculty in man. It is not free in the sense of autonomy.

This explains why God tells the truth, the devil does evil and sinners love sin. They like it that way because of their respective natures. Each chooses freely according to their desires, without compulsion, depending on their true natures.

Second, the will of man is not morally neutral. If it were, we would assume his character is morally neutral as well. Nothing in Scripture, reason or human experience supports such an assumption.

What is a will?

Would you like to see your free will? Go stand in front of a full length

mirror. The reflection is your free will. It is you. It is the totality of everything you are. In this sense, we could say we do not have a will. We are one.

The choices we make are not the workings of any self-governing organ of the brain. Our choices reflect our entire being. If it were otherwise, how could it be said that the choices truly reflect our true selves?

This may explain why the Bible speaks volumes about the heart and so little about the will.

What are the implications for fallen man?

Loss of freedom

As a person moves away from God, he moves away from freedom. His bondage increases. By the very definition of bondage he becomes unable to return to God. His will still exists and functions though it is aimed toward more slavery.

Mans responsibility remains the same

Can God rightly hold him responsible for turning back to God although he cannot? Should God command him to do right even though he can no longer will to do it?

Man is still the image of God even though the image is marred. [11] Man’s responsibility is based on the purpose for which he was created, not on his current moral ability.

Additionally, fallen man retains some knowledge of God through the creation and the conscience. Everyone has some degree of light although they choose to suppress it. [12]

The point: man’s moral responsibility to obey God has nothing to do with his free will

The Bible never suggests our responsibility is based on free will. No philosopher or theologian has ever been able to show a necessary connection between responsibility and free will.

One might as well say a debtor is not responsible for his debt if he cannot pay.

The will is bound to the carnal nature and controlled by it

Bible teaching on the moral state of the carnal mind shows indicates this. It is dominated by the carnal reason, cannot submit to God’s law, follows the thought-forms of this world, is God’s enemy, is under the dominion of Satan and defiled. [13]

Religious humanists who declare the moral freedom of the will must do one of two things: Either show from Scripture that the will is not a function of the mind, or show how the will was the only human faculty to escape the fall. [14]

Sinners are unable to generate faith or repentance without divine intervention

This is a consequence of bondage to the carnal nature. In another lesson we will study how God changes the direction of a sinners will without forcing it.

In what ways, then, is the will free or not free?

The will of man is free to act according to his own desires without compulsion from anything outside. God does not force our will in conversion, but works indirectly through influences in our nature.

Man’s will is never free, however, from the overruling providence of God. For in him we live and move and have our being. Acts 17:28 Not even the fallen will could exist without God’s sustaining power.

What about the sovereignty of God in all this?

Remember we said in lesson one how God works indirectly? He has a big toolbox. One of these tools is the free will of man. God uses man’s choices, even the fall into sin, to accomplish His plan for history. This involves His ultimate glory and the demonstration of His attributes, such as grace, judgment and love.

Conclusions

The will is never autonomous either from God or from the person himself. By falling into sin, man lost the ability to will or do anything to convert himself or submit to God’s authority. He did not lose, however, his responsibility God.

From this lesson we learned:

· The will is the mental faculty that chooses according to the nature of the being it represents. It is never autonomous.

· Moral freedom of the will and holiness are inseparably linked, as in God.

· The will is not the governing factor in man. His nature is.

· Man is still the image of God, fallen or not. As such, his responsibility to obey God cannot change, however much his will may be in bondage.

· God is perfectly just in commanding fallen man to do what he cannot do.

· What god requires is accomplished through his means. Christians pray, therefore, “your will be done.”

Study Questions for Lesson Five

What is a will?

Theologians distinguish between natural and moral free will. What is the difference between these?

What exactly is the point of controversy in discussions of free will?

What does the question of free will have to do with our status as the image of God?

Explain why the will of man, fallen or not, can never be said to be autonomous.

Explain why there is no necessary connection between responsibility and ability.

Explain how the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man are not mutually exclusive teachings.

Explain the effects of the fall on the will of man.

According to Romans 3, what are the two reasons God commands obedience from fallen man even though man is unable, without Christ, to comply.

Pre-Class Reading:

Read WCF Chapter 10; Read John 3:1-8 and Titus 3:5-7

LESSON 6: Free Will, the Religious Humanist View

Humanism takes two forms, secular and religious. Both assume the will of man is autonomous. According to humanism, man’s will is the ruling faculty in his nature, independent from any influences outside of itself. [15]

If the respective parts of human nature were a train, humanists would identify the will as the engine. They see the will as the driving force of human nature. In this view, the will of man drags the other faculties behind it by its autonomous power. [16]

Secular and religious humanism arrive at the assumption of autonomy from different approaches. The secular humanist holds to autonomy simply because he believes there is no God. He sees the glory of man as the only worthwhile pursuit because nothing else is supreme.

These assumptions pervade modern culture. In films, the hero lifts himself to victory by the force of his will. He may have a few character flaws but he has even these under control. The power of the mind to control reality permeates science fiction. The message is clear: Man’s potential is limitless. All he needs is to reach into the depths of his own being and draw upon the goodness and power hidden there, and victory is his. [17]

For the purposes of this study, secular humanism concerns us little because it is atheistic. We are more concerned with religious humanism [18] because of its insidious influences on Evangelicals today. More theological errors stem from wrong views about free will than any other teaching. Even errors about God often result from false concepts about man. People would rather change God than themselves. [19]

The religious humanist looks on the will as a special ground on which God will not tread. He feels it is a contradiction to call the will free unless it is exempt from divine control. [20] This would be a kind of cosmic cheating. A common teaching is, “God does not violate our free will.” [21]

Secular humanism views man’s will as morally neutral. They believe babies are born with a blank slate for a mind. Their environment and parental influences explain human behavior, not innate tendencies.

Because of the doctrine of the fall of Adam, religious humanists have difficulty holding to a view of man’s will as morally neutral. They come close to it though, by saying man is born with a bias toward sin but is not dominated by it. This allows them to accommodate biblical teaching about inward corruption without abandoning the basic assumption of autonomy. [22]

The Bible explodes this notion with many texts like Romans 3:12, there is no one who does good, not even one. This is why legalism among Christians is so despicable. Like a flower it may impress us. Then we notice its roots feeding off the muck of humanist presuppositions. [23]

The source of the assumptions

The assumption of autonomy is the default setting of human nature. The fall of Adam programmed human nature to assume its own autonomy because desire for autonomy was the whole idea behind the fall in the first place. The fall produced not only sin, but a set of delusions regarding man’s own righteousness and his power to produce it.

This is why all religions, except biblical Christianity, are works-righteousness systems.

The influence of religious humanism in evangelical circles

Between the influence of modern culture and the default settings of human nature, it is no wonder religious humanism permeates large sectors of Christianity. As a result, an entire theology has grown up to defend it. Some arguments sound plausible until we examine them closer. It is important for Christian workers today to be aware of these arguments and know how to refute them, so believers can be sound in the faith.

Religious humanist arguments [24]

Error One: Assuming commands and exhortations from the Bible prove we must have the ability to do them

This error assumes responsibility proves ability. One hears, “God would never command a person to do what he could not do.” Or, “God would never tell a person to repent and believe if he could not do it.”

As we pointed out in the previous chapter, man’s responsibility is based on his status as God’s image, not on his current abilities. God will never lower His standards of holiness just because His image fell into sin.

Mans inability always comes from his own corruption, not from any unreasonable demand of his Creator.

Why did God give the Law to Moses? Did He actually expect the Jews to keep it? Did He suppose they could? This alone shows the religious humanist assumption to be fallacious.

In Romans Chapter Three we see two reasons why God gave commandments to fallen man:

· To vindicate the righteousness of God

· To expose the sinfulness of man. [25]

Neither of these have anything to do with proving man’s moral free will:

Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.” 5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. Rom. 3:4-6,20

Even more striking is Paul’s statement in Romans 8:7 that the carnal mind is unable to submit to God’s law. If the will is part of the mind, then we are forced to conclude that fallen man, without grace, is unable to choose submission to God.

…the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Rom. 8:7

To summarize, Paul is saying the entire Old Testament was given to prove man’s inability to obey God. It hardly makes sense, therefore, to quote from the Old Testament to prove free will.

Error Two: Assuming commands to repent or believe are meaningless unless man could do so

These commands are as much a part of the Law as any other. Fallen man is equally unable to obey these without grace. One might as well say the Ten Commandments are meaningless unless sinners have an innate ability to obey them perfectly.

Error Three: Assuming predetermination of will contradicts the whole idea of freedom

This objection assumes the will is morally neutral, neither good nor evil. If so, we would have to say the will of God, as well as the will of Christ, angels and believers in heaven are not free since they are predetermined to good only.

Likewise, we would have to say demons are not responsible for their actions because their wills are entirely determined to evil.

Error Four: Confusing natural liberty with moral liberty

Choosing our breakfast or which car to buy falls within the realm of natural liberty. Conversion to Christ, however, is a uniquely spiritual experience without precedent in the natural world. It hardly compares with a breakfast menu. Nor does choosing a car involve surrendering the ego to a Supreme Authority.

Error Five: Assuming God does not violate the free will of man

That is correct. He does not. If God were to grab a persons will and twist it by direct physical force, this would be a violation. It is not a violation of the will to illuminate the person’s inner nature to generate new perceptions and desires. [26]

Error Six: Assuming free will is essential to the image of God

Some teachers claim man’s status as God’s image must include moral free will. If God is free then man must be free also.

This confuses free with uncaused. God is the only autonomous and uncaused Being in the universe. He is uncreated. It is a contradiction to say man is a creation of God and then claim man’s will is uncaused or autonomous.

The Bible shows man is still the image of God even though fallen. [27] Yet elsewhere the Bible shows man’s entire nature is bound by sin. Apparently Bible writers saw no necessary connection between free will, in the sense autonomy and being the image of God.

Summary

Fallen man’s basic assumption about himself is his own autonomy. This results in two forms of humanism, secular and religious. While the secular form presents a challenge in the public domain, the religious is even more insidious. The devastating effects of the autonomous view leads to legalism, liberalism and other theological errors. Christians need to be aware of the arguments for religious humanism and how to refute them.

From this lesson we learned:

· Fallen man invariably assumes he is autonomous. He imagines his will is free from any cause outside himself, as though he himself were a god.

· All forms of humanism, whether secular or religious, stem from the delusion of autonomy.

· Commands and exhortations from the Bible do not prove moral free will. Predetermination of will does not contradict the idea of freedom. Natural freedom of will does not prove moral freedom.

· God’s influence on man’s nature to change the direction of his will is not a violation of free will.

Study Questions for Lesson Six

Describe the difference between secular humanism and religious humanism in their view of the will.

Explain why commands and exhortations from the Bible do not prove moral freedom of will.

Explain why predetermination of will does not contradict the idea of freedom.

Explain why the idea of free will is not essential to a human beings definition as the image of God.

Pre-Class Reading:

Chapter 10 on Effectual Call from WCF.

LESSON 7: Grace and Faith

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, Titus 2:11

Grace and Mercy: The Difference

Since grace brings salvation, it is crucial to understand what grace means.

What would be the response if we asked a group of Christians whether or not the following definition of grace were correct?... Grace is God’s gracious disposition to forgive repentant sinners. It is likely many would agree.

Unfortunately, this is only half-true. The above definition better describes mercy. Scripture sometimes uses grace as a near synonym for mercy. It would be a serious reductionism, however, to limit it to this. [28] Like the weak foundation of a building, faulty definitions can have devastating consequences on vital doctrines.

Grace means unmerited divine favor. The Greek term in the original is charis, derived from the verb charizomai. This word means to show favor to. [29] It assumes the graciousness of the giver and the unworthiness of the recipient. When charis is used of God’s activity, it means unmerited favor. [30]

Grace and mercy have two important distinctions. First, mercy is universal while grace is particular. Mercy is based on God’s universal command to repent.

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. Acts 17:30

Inherent in this command is the assumption the repentant sinner will be forgiven. A divine offer of mercy to all mankind exists. For this reason, God may never be accused of unfairness merely because some receive special grace. God never rejects a repentant sinner.

Grace, on the other hand, has never been offered to anybody, not even the elect. Grace is not an offer. It is an unmerited bestowal. It is also particular in the sense God bestows favor on some, not on everyone. We see this most clearly in the interplay between grace and election. …there is a remnant chosen by grace. Rom. 11:5

Thus, we see key distinctions between mercy and grace. Mercy is universal, offered to all. Grace is particular, bestowed upon some.

Important aspects of grace

Grace is timeless

who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 2Tim. 1:9

Eternity is not linear time extended indefinitely, but a timeless dimension God inhabits. [31] Grace originated there, beyond human control. Nothing in our time-space continuum was the cause of His grace and nothing could change God’s mind now.

Grace is unmerited

Notice again that 2Tim.1:9 excludes works from God’s purpose and grace. Not only is grace disassociated from merits, it is the diametric opposite as Paul clarifies in Romans 11:6:

And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.

Likewise, grace is not dependent on obedience to the Law either.

Rom. 6:14 ...for you are not under law but under grace.

A sure way to demolish grace is to mix in any merit whatsoever.

Grace is a divine quality

It is a characteristic of each of the members of the Trinity.

Father: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Rom. 1:7

Son: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.

Holy Spirit: And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication.Zech. 12:10...insulted the Spirit of grace. Heb.10:29

Grace is sovereign

Paul expresses God’s sovereignty in grace by associating it with His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself. [32] It seems He consulted with no one in His choice of recipients, nor waited for anyone’s permission. See Eph. 1:7-9

Grace is the only basis of our acceptance with God

…to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. Eph. 1:6

Since this is so, any teaching that offers formulas or techniques for acceptance with God other than grace alone, is false. Forgiveness of sins, redemption through Christ’s blood, wisdom and understanding and all spiritual blessings are given by grace alone. Eph.1:1-5

Grace is holy

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 11 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, Titus 2:12

Even during the first century, there existed movements associating grace with libertarianism. The Apostles warned us about them in verses like Jude 4. Any insinuation that grace gives Christians freedom to act in carnal ways is heresy. Those who teach such things prove they have no grace whatsoever.

Grace is for the few, not the many

So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. Rom. 11:5

A remnant, by definition, refers to the few among a larger group. The only reason a saved remnant exists at all is because of grace.

Grace is a mystery

Grace has no basis in human merit. The question as to why some receive it and some do not, remains a mystery. This again appears unfair until we acknowledge God owes nothing to anyone. Ironically, attempts to remove the mystery from grace winds up in heresy.

Preaching the gospel means preaching grace

…the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace. Acts 20:24

The minister of the gospel has no other message than the grace of God in Christ. If this is not what he is preaching, then he is not preaching the gospel.

Key question: Is salvation a cooperative work between God and man?

Theologians discuss this point with two words: synergism and monergism.

Synergism comes from two Greek words syn together and ergos work. It means salvation is a cooperative work between God and man. In this view, man contributes something to his salvation. However, his contribution is insufficient and needs to be supplemented by God.

If synergism is correct, then God is an assistant to man’s effort to save himself. God is the passive agent waiting for man to ask for help. God responds to man’s initiative.

Monergism comes from two Greek words, mono alone and ergos work. It means salvation is a work of God alone. Man is unable to contribute. Therefore God is the active agent and man responds to God’s initiative. [33]

Salvation comes by grace through faith. Eph.2:8 Which is correct, Synergism or Monergism? It depends on whether saving faith is itself a work of God’s grace.

A few key texts settle the issue:

The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 1Tim. 1:14

Grace brings the virtues of faith and love.

…those who by grace had believed. Acts 18:27

Grace was clearly the cause of their faith.

For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, Phil. 1:29

The term granted here is CHARIZOMAI in Greek, which means give freely by grace. It means more than mere permission to believe. Belief was something God worked in them.

He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” John 6:65

If coming to Christ means believing in Him, then faith comes from God the Father as a gift.

Similar texts: Acts 13:48; Heb.2:2; Jn. 6:44; Tit.1:1

Once a person is saved, how does grace and faith work?

A sinner is dead in his sins, unable to generate saving faith until God works in him powerfully by the Spirit through the Gospel.

Once he is saved, however, faith actively conveys grace for Christian living. The faith is already there.

Grace, at this point, shows its multi-faceted nature: ...the manifold grace of God. 1Pet. 4:10 Once a sinner has been saved by grace he learns how to live by grace. A Christian makes a big mistake if he assume grace is no longer necessary.

Grace puts us to work

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 1Cor. 15:10

Grace is active, not passive. Though we cannot obtain grace by our works, nevertheless grace results in works. When Luke spoke about the Apostles and said, “Great grace was on them all, he meant they were productive by God’s power.

Grace, through faith, makes us stand firm in Christ

...through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Rom. 5:2

Fear of falling can be healthy as long as it drives us to depend on God’s grace alone to keep us. If we let fear drive us to legalism, we guarantee our own failure. Depending on grace leads to joy because it frees us from ourselves, avoiding self-dependence, which is the delusion of autonomy.

Grace allows us to approach God boldly

Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. Heb. 4:16

Our high priest, Jesus, makes it possible to approach God boldly because it is in His name we come. Grace frees us from cringing terror of God while teaching a deep sense of reverence.

Grace overcomes sin

Nothing else does.

…so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 5:21

People try all sorts of things to overcome sin...legalism, good works such as severe treatment of the body. Grace does the job because nothing else can....

Such regulations …lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. Col. 2:23

Means of grace

Remember how we discussed in Lesson Three how God works through means? Though God’s grace is sovereign in the life of the believer, He nevertheless gives us means to apply. These are the Word, prayer and the ministries of the Church. As we apply these means, God continues to supply grace to walk with him. God is not dependent on these means nor should we assume we have earned grace because we apply them. We depend on God alone for grace, yet recognize our responsibility to apply the means to the end He has provided.

for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. Phil. 2:13

Summary

Saving grace is God’s unmerited favor. It is sovereign, dependent solely on God’s will. Grace is the opposite of merit. Though God offers mercy to all mankind, conditioned upon repentance, His grace is bestowed on an elect few. Grace is the sole cause of salvation, not based on any human contribution.

Grace in the life of the believer is multi-faceted. It makes it possible to walk with God and gives power to do His work. God alone is the cause of grace though He requires Christians to apply faithfully the means He has put at our disposal to grow.

From this lesson we learned:

· Grace is unmerited divine favor. It is an eternal, holy and powerful divine quality.

· Grace and mercy are similar but not identical. Mercy is offered to all but grace is bestowed on some.

· Saving faith itself is a work of grace.

Believers depend on God alone for his sustaining grace while applying the means. These are the word, prayer and the ministries of the church

Study Questions for Lesson Seven

Explain the similarities and differences between grace and mercy.

Show logically why grace, by its definition, must be sovereign.

What are the means of grace in the life of the believer?

Explain why grace is not a license to sin.

Define monergism and synergism.

Describe the effects of grace in the life of the believer.

Pre-class Reading:

Read Chapter 10 of the Westminster Confession.

LESSON 8: Irresistible Grace

... the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, Eph. 1:18

The Call

In the last three lessons we saw fallen man in his delusion of autonomy, dancing on Satan’s string like a puppet, powerless to will or do anything to promote his own salvation. He is dead in sin, likes it that way and resents efforts to change him. His delusion runs so deep, he may even imagine God is pleased with him.

At the same time, we saw God’s universal offer of mercy through His commands to repent. Christ ordained the gospel to be preached to all nations without regard to race, social status or economic condition. His gracious invitation still stands: Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Matt. 11:28

We also saw the sovereign nature of grace. Saving faith is a product of this grace. A miracle must happen in a person for conversion to take place. This lesson discusses the content of that miracle, how it works and on whom.

To begin the study of the miracle of conversion, lets look at Romans 8:30:

And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

As we notice the word called, certain truths stand out:

The call is based on predestination

· It is different from the general call to mankind to repent since it is for the few, not the many.

· This call invariable results in justification, which in turn gets us to heaven, glorified.

· This call is irresistible and efficacious. Otherwise, only some of those justified would be glorified.

· Faith is included in this call because faith is necessary for justification.

· This call must be involved with an internal transformation of the sinner, making faith possible.

God alone is the cause ...He predestined...He called...He justified...He glorified.

This call must be a special grace from God, different from His general benevolence toward mankind as a whole.

We can define this call as a sovereign act of God by which He saves the elect.

Theologians call this doctrine by various names: Irresistible Grace, Special Grace or most often, Effectual Call. [34] For brevity’s sake, we will use the term the call throughout this lesson, especially since this is the word most commonly used in the New Testament to describe the idea.

Sometimes a different word is used, however. The Apostle John used the word draw to express the same concept in John 6:44&65:

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:44

He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” John 6:65

Coming to Christ means faith in Him.

From these verses we deduce:

· No one can generate saving faith out of his autonomous will.

· The Father produces saving faith by an act called drawing. This drawing is called a gift in V.65. It is therefore not a reward for something man accomplishes.

· The infallible result of this drawing is salvation. This is clear from the phrase ...raise him up at the last day. [35]

· No one can successfully resist this drawing because all those so drawn will be saved.

Conclusion

This drawing is a sovereign work of God, resulting in an infallible salvation.

Does this mean God forces people against their will?

No. The Holy Spirit changes the internal nature of a sinner by enlightening the mind, revealing sin as so ugly and Christ as so desirable that nothing could prevent that person from coming to Christ freely and willingly. This is in no way imposes on man’s will or violates his freedom.

A Key Distinction: Universal Call vs Effectual Call

Christ commanded the gospel to be preached to all nations. (Mt. 28:19) The Apostles preached to Jews and Gentiles alike. Paul declared, …both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus. Acts 20:21 From the New Testament, it is clear the gospel is for everybody. How do we square this with texts about a work of God for some only?

Many assume the difference is because some choose to believe while others do not. Since saving faith itself is a work of grace, this assumption would involve circular reasoning.

In the lesson on grace, we saw God’s free offer of mercy to all. Theologians call this the universal or external call because everyone in the crowd hears the same message. The offer of mercy to the repentant is valid for all and they are responsible for the way they respond to it. In Lesson Three we saw that sinners are responsible for their actions regardless of any ability.

With some, God penetrates the message deeper than the ears and uses it to save them. So we have two calls in one message: A call to all, and a call to some. Theologians distinguish these two operations by calling them either Universal Call vs Effectual Call, General Grace vs Special Grace or, External Call vs Internal Call.

The call is associated with election and predestination

A study of the term call throughout the New Testament reveals a close association between election and predestination. Another verse on this point is:

in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 11 not by works but by him who calls… Rom.9:11-12

Paul, in speaking about Jacob and Esau, shows the irresistibility of this call by linking it with his purposes in election. ...that God’s purpose...

We saw in Lesson Two the difference between God’s will of purpose versus God’s will of command. We also saw how He works through means to establish His purposes. The connection between the call and election illustrates the interplay between sovereignty and means. God’s purpose in eternity was to save His elect. He brought this to pass by a divine action the Bible labels, call.

The doctrine of Irresistible Grace or Effectual Call belongs to the category of God’s immutable sovereign decrees rather than His will of command.

Curiously, the reverse is true of the Universal Call, even though it is the same message. He allows the non-elect to resist His offer of mercy if they want to. They always want to.

Paul connects God’s eternal purposes with grace and the call in 2Tim.1:9:

One of the clearest passages on the relationship between election and effectual call is 1Cor.1:22-29. (The text is too long to quote here, so the student should follow along in the Bible.)

This text mentions three classes of people: Jews, gentiles and a third group, Jews and Greeks together, labeled those who are called. [36]

The first group, the Jews, reject Christ because they want to see the gospel proven by miracles. God’s Word is not enough for them. The second group, the Greeks, reject Christ because He does not fit into their philosophical systems. God’s wisdom is not good enough for them. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom. V.22

The third group is individuals taken out of the first two groups despite their initial rejection. These are those whom God has called because He chose them.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 1Cor. 1:26-27

Paul preached to both groups. Each responded according to their cultural bias and sinful perceptions. This is the universal call. The ones who responded did so because they were chosen for that. God ignored their bias and perceptions, drawing them anyway. This is the effectual call.

The call is irrevocable

As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, Rom. 11:28

Paul’s use of the term irrevocable in V.29 also puts effectual call squarely in the category of immutable purposes. This call therefore depends on God’s sovereign will and not on man’s ability to respond.

Eternal life is for the called only

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. Heb. 9:15

The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” Acts 2:39

(Other texts are: ITim.6:12; 2Th.2:13-14; Rev.19:9)

The complex interplay between effectual call, the sacrifice of Christ, His high priestly office and the covenant promises is worth an entire study on its own. This interplay by itself demonstrates both the limited nature of the call as well as its efficacy.

The effectual call guarantees our sanctification and preservation

May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it. 1Th. 5:23-24 (See also Jude 1:1; 1Cor. 1:8-9)

Sanctification is not only God’s will for us, it is His promise. His grace called to Christ. The same grace sanctifies and preserves. The entire plan is ultimately based on His faithfulness rather than ours.

Effectual call is also a call to holiness

But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 1Pet.1:15

God’s holiness is the one personal attribute most often mentioned in Scripture. A call to come to Him must necessarily involve a call to a holy life.

Summary

Irresistible Grace, called by theologians the Effectual Call, is a sovereign work of God. He draws the elect to Himself by the Word and the Spirit, changes them internally, enables them to perceive their need of Christ and grants them the ability to trust in Christ to be saved. God does not violate their will or freedom, but works in such a way that they come willingly and freely.

From this lesson we learned:

· God uses the same gospel message in both the Universal Call and the Effectual Call. The first is a genuine offer of mercy to all mankind, the second a special work of grace.

· The Effectual Call is based on election and predestination.

· The call is irrevocable. This means it is in the category of God’s eternal will of purposes which cannot be thwarted by the will of man.

· Our ultimate sanctification and preservation are based on the call.

· This call is also a call to holiness.

For students who will continue with Part Two, read Chapter 15 in the WCF. Finish reading “Unlocking Grace” entirely

Study Questions for lesson 8

Explain the difference between Universal Call and Effectual Call.

What are some of the other terms used for Effectual Call and why are they used?

Explain why God’s offer of mercy to mankind is just and sincere despite His work of sovereign grace in some.

Explain why Effectual Call must fit into the category of God’s Sovereign will of purposes, rather than His will of command.

Conclusions

Humanity, fallen into the quagmire of pride, is committed to the notion of his autonomy and importance. This in turn generates the assumption he has an inherent right to rule himself and his environment.

He may admit he needs God. By this, he means he needs occasional divine assistance to help him maintain control. The thought that he was never meant to be in control in the first place seems to escape his attention.

Since a religious need remains, man even invents religions suited to his taste. He decides what he contributes to please his gods. Even in religion, man declares he is in control. It never occurs to him that his religion is another sinful declaration of autonomy and he is, in fact, worshiping himself.

Man considers himself on center stage in a play about himself. How the play ends, depends entirely on him.

The Bible presents a radically different picture. We exist, for the praise of his glory. The world may be a stage, but man is not the center nor is the story about him. It is about God and His glory.

The Good News of the gospel seems bad news at first. When a person learns he is a sinner and must repent, it appears like an invitation to a sort of suicide. Abandoning his autonomy is a self-abnegation totally unnatural to sinners and provokes immediate resistance. Only grace can overcome this.

When a person is converted, he confronts a series of paradoxes. Freedom means dependence on the Lord. Living means dying to self. Work means resting in grace. God, self, others and life take on new perspectives and priorities.

Effects of the doctrines of grace in the believer

Events of life

Understanding God’s sovereignty eliminates chance as an explanation of the condition of the world. Nothing is accidental. While the world may seem chaotic, the Christian knows it is under God’s control. This gives confidence for life in general.

Evangelism

In evangelism, the believer need not worry that someone will be lost merely because he did not witness correctly. God can use even a single word, spoken poorly, to draw a person to himself. If a person is saved through our ministry we take no credit. If a person is lost, we take no blame.

This liberates the believer to evangelize confidently. We cannot fail because God’s word will always accomplish His purpose, although only God knows what that purpose may be.

Spiritual growth

God promises to complete our sanctification. Yet He does this through the means He has given us to apply: God’s Word, prayer and the ministries of the Church. Without this promise, we would have no real certainty these means will be successful. With this promise, we know we cannot fail.

United View of Scripture

The doctrines of grace resolve apparent dilemmas in Scripture. We see how man, utterly bound in sin, must still be held responsible for his actions. Through grace, we see how it is possible to be imperfect, yet accepted by a holy God.

A realistic world and life view

Grasping the gospel of grace gives the believer God’s perception of the world, the only real one. It allows the Christian to face reality with a new confidence. In this sense, we can say Christians who perceive the world through the lens of God’s revelation of Himself as sovereign, are the world’s only realists.

Bibliography

Augustine. Echiridion. Ages Library: Albany Or, 1997.

The title means Handbook in Greek. Augustines little treatise is a brief but potent portrayal of the sovereignty of grace. 101pp

Berkhof, Louis. Manual of Christian Doctrine. Eerdmanns: Grand Rapids MI, 1979.

This outstanding American theologian of the Christian Reformed Church wrote this outline as an introduction to the study of biblical theology. His analysis of the respective doctrines involved in the study of the Doctrines of Grace is usual for preparing group studies for new students or for laymen. 375pp

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1996.

Barhop has an uncommon talent for combining thoroughness with conciseness. He deals with every doctrine of biblical theology, leaving little more to be said. This work is a must for any serious student of theology. For preparing lesson outlines on theology, it is invaluable. 784pp

Boettner, Lorraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.

P&R Publishers: Philipsburg, NJ, 1992.

A modern overview and defense of each of the five points of Calvinism. Why the title focuses on predestination is a mystery because this subject is only one of the chapters. The style is simple, without pedantry and convincing. Highly recommendable to laymen as general introduction to the doctrines of grace. 431pp

Calvin, John. (Battles Translation) Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Book Three. Westminster Press: Philadelphia, 1990.

The supreme classic of the reformation period. Over four hundred pages dedicated to the doctrines of grace. Calvin’s treatise on free will and foreknowledge is superb. 1733pp

Council of Orange. Canons of Orange. Ages Christian Library CD Diskette: 1988

These Canons were written in 529 A.D. At the council of Orange in France, by leading bishops to settle the Pelagian-Augustinian dispute over the sovereignty of grace. Though only six pages, it soundly establishes that sovereign grace, faith as a divine gift and perseverance in Christ by grace alone were the teachings of the church in the first five centuries. 6pp

Gerstner, John. A Primer On Free Will. P&R Publishers: Philipsburg, NJ, 1982.

A little 28 page booklet by a renowned Presbyterian scholar. Written for laymen to help grasp the central concept of the wills subordination to the nature of a person rather than as the governing faculty. 28pp

Grenz&Olson. Twentieth Century Theology. Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 1992. 393pp

A history of the development of liberal theology, with summaries of the views of the key theologians. It is worthwhile noting how the Enlighten of preceding centuries established man as central to history. Every single liberal theologian since then accepted this premise as ipso facto truth. Theological decline proceeded from there.

Pink, A.W. Sovereignty of God. Banner of Truth: London, England,1968.

Now considered a classic of Reformed literature of the 20th century, Pink’s work focuses on the reasonableness and rationality of the principle doctrines of grace. His exposition of Arminian logic fallacies has served as a model for other writers. 160pp

Ramsey, Richard. How Good Must I Be? Presbyterian And Reformed Publishers: Philipsburg, NJ, 1992.

Ramsey is a former missionary in Chile with the Presbyterian Church in America, currently working with Logoi in Miami. His experience in discipling new converts led him to write this very simple and well illustrated introductory booklet on grace. It is designed for study in small groups, with fill-in-the-blanks and discussion questions. 102pp

Rupp, Gordon. Free Will and Salvation: Luther and Erasmus. Westminster Press: Philippsburg, PA, 1999. 348pp

The Pope commissioned Erasmus of Rotterdam in the early 1500’s to write a book refuting the reformation teachings on free will. This work is called, “Diatribe of Erasmus on Free Will”. Luther responded with “Bondage of the Will”. Both books are included in this one cover, edited by Rupp. These two works give the student the opportunity to compare the best defenses of each position.

Smalling, Roger. Unlocking Grace. Deovolente Publishers: Los Alamos, NM, 2002

This book is the English translation of Si, Jesús, published in 1994 in Spanish. It introduces the key doctrines of the reformation in non-polemic style. 180pp

Sproul, R.C. Holiness of God. Tyndale Publishers: Wheaton, Il 1985 234pp

Written from a pastoral perspective, Sproul documents the centrality of this personal attribute in our understanding of God. He also shows fear of God’s holiness to be a motivation in unbelievers to reject Him.

Westerminster Assembly Westminster Confession/Parallel Version. Great Commission Publishers: Suwanee, GA 1999 65pp

This publication contains the original English with the modern English in parallel. Useful for group studies to introduce the confession to laymen.

Watson, Thomas. Ten Commandments. Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, Scotland, 1965 245pp

Watson was a 16th century puritan. The third section of this classic title, Law And Sin, is an excellent discussion on the power of sin to hinder man’s ability to obey God’s law.

Wright, McGregor. No Place For Sovereignty. Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 1996.

The best book on freewillism written in modern times. Wright annihilates the humanist pre suppositions behind arminianism, showing its historical origins and philosophical contradictions. His exegesis of Scripture is sound. 249Pp

[1] . Accordance Bible Program, with a search and find, shows this to be the count. The Hebrew term Yahweh Adonai is translated 297 times by the NIV as ‘Sovereign Lord.’ Oaktree Software Version 4.1, Van Nuys, CA 1997

[2] . Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Hendrickson Publishers: Montville, NJ, 1996

[3] . Kelley, Page. Biblical Hebrew. Eerdmans Publishing: Grand Rapids, MI, 1992 p.68

[4] . On the distinction in Greek between KURIOS (Lord) and DESPOTES (Sovereign Lord), Trench says, “Undoubtedly there lies in KURIOS the sense of an authority owning limitations-- moral limitations it may be; it is implied too that the wielder of this authority will not exclude, in wielding it, a consideration of their good over whom it is exercised; while the DESPOTES exercises a more unrestricted power and absolute domination, confessing no such limitations or restraints.” Trench, Richard Synonyms of the New Testament. Eerdmans Publishing: Grand Rapids, MI 1953 P.96

[5] 5. Said by Luther various times in his book, Bondage of the Will. Many editions of this book exist.

[6] 6. Arminianism is a system of theology invented by a Dutch pastor in the 16th century, Jacob Arminius, in opposition to the Reformation. His views are followed today by several evangelical denominations such as Methodist, Nazarene and Pentecostals.

Enwall, Walter. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 1984 pp 79-81

[7] 7. Romans Chapter Five teaches this.

[8] . See Isaiah 64:6

[9] . In conversations with Arminians, this writer has noticed they often believe Calvinists deny the natural liberty of the will.

[10] . The holiness of God, not His love, is His most important personal attribute according to the Bible. More about the holiness of God exists in Scripture than all His other attributes combined, including love. See Charnock, Existence And Attributes Of God on this point.

[11] . It is interesting that Christ is called the image of God in Hebrews 1:3. The Greek word for Image here, is Chracter, which in English letters spells Character. It means exact representation.

Louw&Nida. Accordance Bible Software: Version 4.1 Oaktree Software: Van Nuys, CA 1997

[12] . This subject overlaps into the study of Apologetics which is beyond the scope of this course. For private study, see Romans 1:18-24 and Romans 2:1-14.

[13] . See Col. 1:21; Eph. 2:1-3; Eph. 4:17-18; Rom. 7:23; Rom. 7:25 Ro.8:7;1Pet. 4:1; Titus 1:15

[14] . If the will is not a function of the mind, then of what is it a function?

[15] . “A philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individuals dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.” Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary Software Version 2.5, 2000.

[16] . Fallen man takes offense at the idea he is not autonomous. This is why every kind of religion or philosophy is tolerated in many schools and universities except biblical Christianity.

[17] . Even some Christians are surprised when we challenge these assumptions. Yet historic, biblical Christianity is the only religion not humanistic at its root. All other religions assume the autonomy of the will of man.

[18] . For a fuller treatise on how humanist thinking entered the Christian realm, see the article Christian Humanism:

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker House: Grand Rapids, MI, 1984 pp 536

[19] . All theological liberalism, without exception, is based on the assumption of human autonomy. Grenz and Olson document this in their monumental Twentieth Century Theology. They state, “Reason and nature opened the way for the third principle of the Enlightenment mindset- autonomy. ...the autonomous human dethroned external authority as the arbiter of truth and action.” P.21

Emmanuel Kant is an example of this mindset. “Enlightenment is man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man’s inablity to make use of his understanding without direction from another.” Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Liberal Arts Press: New York, NY, 1959 To Kant , submitting to authority for instruction is an abandonment of reason. One wonders if Kant expected anyone to submit to this statement as authoritative or instructive.

[20] . By now the student understands why escape from God’s control is impossible. Even divine permission is itself a form of control because God must make a choice to intervene or not in any particular human decision.

[21] . In fact, this is a half-truth. Reformed theology teaches God changes the will through the gospel by changing a sinners nature. This is not a violation or compulsion of any kind.

[22] . Many seem to feel Romans 3, and similar texts, are not to be taken literally. Dave Hunt takes this stance in his vicious attack against Calvinism in chapter 12 of his book, What Love Is This. He rejects Luther’s usage of Romans 3 to show the inability of man without grace, to respond to God. Hunt asserts this is man’s usual practice only and then goes on, in the face of Romans 3, to make the extraordinary statement, “Nowhere does the Scripture tell us that man is in such total bandage to evil that he cannot respond obediently to God.” To people like Hunt, Paul’s declaration, “There are none who do good, no not one”, really means, there are none who do good all the time. This is the degree of Scripture-twisting to which one must resort in order to assert moral free will.

Hunt, Dave. What Love Is This.Loyal Publishing Company: Sisters, OR , 2002 p.185

[23] . The same is true of asceticism, being strict about the body. Paul makes it clear such strictness is worthless in overcoming the carnal nature. Col. 2:23

[24] . Every one of these erroneous premises are displayed in Erasmus “Freedom of the Will.”

Rupp, Gordon. Free Will and Salvation: Luther and Erasmus. Westminster Press: Philippsburg, PA, 1999 pp1-97

The modern rabid Arminian, Dave Hunt, also repeats them in his book. Hunt, Dave. What Love Is This.Loyal Publishers: Sisters, OR, 2002 pp.179-189

[25] . In his debate with Erasmus over this issue, Martin Luther said he invited Erasmus to quote from all the divine commands he wanted. Afterwards Luther said he would write Romans 3:20 over the top of them all. This would show by t every divine command proves man’s lack of free will rather than the ability of it.

[26] . Religious humanists have difficulty explaining the experience of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 4:33. God removed his mind, free will and all, and left him insane for seven years. We see no hesitation on the part of God to violate this kings free will.

[27] . James 3:9 points out: With it [the tongue] we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God.

[28] . Examples of grace used in this way are listed below. However, it could be argued that these texts mean mercy is a component of grace, rather a synonym. Eph. 1:7; Eph.2:4-5; 1Tim.1:12-14; Heb. 4:16

[29] . It is interesting that the Encyclopedia Britannica defines this term with equal precision: “In Christian theology, the spontaneous, unmerited gift of the divine favor in the salvation of sinners, and the divine influence operating in man for his regeneration and sanctification. The English term is the usual translation for the Greek charis, which occurs in the New Testament about 150 times (two-thirds of these in writings attributed to Paul). Although the word must sometimes be translated in other ways, the fundamental meaning in the New Testament and in subsequent theological usage is that contained in the Letter of Paul to Titus: "For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men" (2:11). Encyclopedia Britannica, Computer Edition, 2001 Search Criteria, “Grace”

[30] . Grace is used in various senses within the context of Christian living. For now, we are dealing only with saving grace.

[31] . Is. 57:15 For thus says the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity,...

[32] Eph. 1:7-9

[33] 25. The only branch of theology in Christendom holding to monergism is the Reformed. All others are synergistic and differ only in the question of exactly what man contributes to attract the grace of God.

[34] . The word “irresistible” here means not resisted successfully. We all attempted to resist before coming to Christ. We simply were not successful at it, thank God.

[35] . Although the Bible teaches God will raise all mankind, this is not a promise from the viewpoint of sinners. To them, it is a threat. In the context, Jesus clearly uses the idea of resurrection as a synonym for saved.

[36] . The word “Greeks” is often used by Paul as synonym for Gentiles in general.

Table of Contents

Syllabus

Purpose

Materials

Course Content

Benefits

Requirements for correspondence students

Thesis requirements

Evaluation of the thesis is based on the following standards:

Study questions

Endnotes

LESSON 1: Doctrine is Central to Christian Living

Why be excited about the doctrines of grace?

Important considerations

Comparisons with other groups are legitimate

Theological inferences are valid as evidence

Study Questions for Lesson 1

LESSON 2: Theological Grounds for the Sovereignty of God

First evidence: Sovereign is part of his name

An Old Testament name

A New Testament name

Second Evidence: Natural Divine Attributes

Third Evidence: The Attribute of Immutability and the Divine Decrees

Immutability of God’s “Counsels”

Fourth Evidence: God Owns Everything

Fifth Evidence: Examples of Divine Control

Conclusion

Study Questions for Lesson 2

LESSON 3: The Doctrine of Providence, Means and the Problem of Evil

The problem of evil

The idea of permission

Philosophical attacks on the providence of God

From this lesson we learned:

Study Questions for Lesson 3

LESSON 4: The Doctrine of Total Depravity

Definitions

Implications

First evidence: The Fall of Mankind, Romans Chapter Five

Second Evidence: Spiritual Death, Ephesians 2:1-3

Third Evidence: Effect of Sin on the Mind

The natural man cannot receive the things of God

Satan has blinded the minds of unbelievers

The understanding is darkened

The carnal mind is unable to submit to the law of God

The sinners will is bound by the devil so they cannot come to their senses without God granting the gift of repentance

Fourth Evidence: The Carnal Nature, Romans 3:9-20

Without Christ, sinners cannot:

Conclusions

From this lesson we learned:

Pre-class reading: Review again Chapter 9 from WCF. Study Questions for Lesson 4

LESSON 5: Free Will, the Biblical View

A Clue: What is a human being?

The main point

What is a will?

What are the implications for fallen man?

Loss of freedom

Mans responsibility remains the same

The point: man’s moral responsibility to obey God has nothing to do with his free will

The will is bound to the carnal nature and controlled by it

Sinners are unable to generate faith or repentance without divine intervention

In what ways, then, is the will free or not free?

What about the sovereignty of God in all this?

Conclusions

From this lesson we learned:

Study Questions for Lesson Five

LESSON 6: Free Will, the Religious Humanist View

The source of the assumptions

The influence of religious humanism in evangelical circles

Religious humanist arguments [24]

Error One: Assuming commands and exhortations from the Bible prove we must have the ability to do them

Error Two: Assuming commands to repent or believe are meaningless unless man could do so

Error Three: Assuming predetermination of will contradicts the whole idea of freedom

Error Four: Confusing natural liberty with moral liberty

Error Five: Assuming God does not violate the free will of man

Error Six: Assuming free will is essential to the image of God

Summary

From this lesson we learned:

Study Questions for Lesson Six

LESSON 7: Grace and Faith

Grace and Mercy: The Difference

Pre-class reading: Review again Chapter 9 from WCF.
Study Questions for Lesson 4