Monthly Archives: January 2017

Effectual Calling

Posted on by
Reply

In this excerpt from the Ligonier 2010 National Conference, Albert Mohler dispels two common caricatures of the doctrine of effectual calling.

Transcript

Does human responsibility eliminate irresistible grace? Who would like that one?

Well, let me just say—let’s admit that irresistible grace is not the way we would chose to express this. Effectual calling is a far more biblical way to express this because irresistible grace sounds like a cartoon setup in which there’s someone saying, ‘I do not want to be regenerated, I do not want to be born again, I do not want to love Christ.’ And yet they’re being overruled to such that it’s against their will. What kind of love is capable of being constructed out of being overruled with one’s will.

No. It’s effectual calling that reminds us that what God begins, in terms of the order of salvation, He always finishes. And when that work of genuine faith begins in the believer—the work of God—He will bring it to full fruition. And you’re going to see it when grace becomes—the operations of grace—becomes evident in the individual because they do love Christ and they do desire the things of Christ—they desire salvation. And so we just need to get rid of the straw man—they’re two horrific cartoonish straw men we need to be rid of. The first is the righteous sinner who desires to be saved but just can’t because he’s righteous and desiring salvation because he’s not among the elect. And the other is the person who desperately does not want to be among the elect but has been elected anyway. Neither of those persons is found within the Scriptures.

2017 and Rome

Posted on by
Reply

James-White23“2017 will clarify for many why they are not Roman Catholics, and how they will relate to Rome. For many, the walls will fall, and they will swim the Tiber. For others, they will be confirmed in their bigotry and their rejection of Rome based upon bad arguments, false history, and their own form of overpowering tradition. But for many of the truly faithful, the issues will be seen with clarity, and their rejection of Rome will be accompanied not only by a new found fervor for the truths of sola scriptura, soli Deo gloria, sola fide, etc., but that fervor will be joined with a deep desire to see Roman Catholics come to know the gospel that actually saves and gives peace. If your opposition to Rome does not result in your reaching out in love and truth to them, longing to see them come to know the grace that truly saves, then your opposition is a clanging cymbal, and it means nothing.” – Dr. James White

God’s Intention in the Atonement

Posted on by
Reply

allen Dr. James White responds:

Let’s think about Dr. Allen’s claim here: there is an obvious presupposition that needs to be exposed and challenged. First, not those who are not His sheep. The once-for-all (temporal, not distributive use) sacrifice perfects those for whom it is made. The Father gives a specific people to the Son, the Son’s death brings about the salvation of each and every one of them, without fail (John 6:39). So there is harmony and consistency between the intention and will of the Father in the salvation of the elect, and the work of the Son in being personally united to the elect so that His death is their death, His resurrection their resurrection. Of course, if such a harmony exists, there is no room for the centerpiece of the synergistic universe: the autonomous will of the creature, man. So this consistency, this harmony, must be denied.

Next, note the assertion “is not adequate to save those for whom it was not made.” See the poorly hidden assumption? Why would the atonement have an intention other than that which is consistent with the actions of each of the members of the Godhead in their work of redemption? Why would the atonement have a different scope and purpose than that redemptive will of the Father? (Which is why synergists must assert a universal *redemptive* will of the Father and deny the specificity of the elect). In other words, why would the Father make personal, effective provision through union with the Son for those who will remain justly under His wrath? The assumption here is that there is some kind of justice issue involved *in the extension of grace* and that if the Father does not make *equal salvific provision* for each and every person, He is unjust. So make sure to note what this means: grace cannot be free, cannot be specific, cannot actually save—this is the watchword of the synergist, whether Roman or non. james-white031

Allen is playing on the discussion of term “adequacy” in reference to the atonement, confusing, as almost all synergists and universal atonement advocates do, the fact that there is no inherent limitation upon the *efficacy* of the atonement with the reality that the atonement is purposeful and harmonious with the election of the Father and the application of the Spirit (harmonious action of the Triune God). The idea is to place in the mind of the reader the false suggestion that by making the atonement consistent with the decree of election and the application by the Spirit we are introducing a fundamental *flaw* or *weakness* or *limitation* in the atonement’s power, when in reality, just the opposite is the case. Once we realize what the atonement is (a true propitiatory sacrifice) and once we realize how the Son is doing the will of the Father in the salvation of the elect, we see not only the atonement’s great power and perfection, we also see the grave dangers that flow necessarily from the synergistic viewpoint that renders the atonement potential, impersonal, and theoretical.