A recent question in the ??Questions?? thread reminded me of an issue I raised long ago [1]. I thought it would be beneficial to raise this question again in more detail and maybe get some feedback from any Calvinists out there that may be able to come up with a satisfying answer.
The question has to do with why, in Calvinism, the newly regenerated sinner necessarily turns to Christ in faith [2]. Calvinists tend to bristle at the suggestion that the newly regenerated sinner chooses Christ in such a way that the choice cannot be considered free. Most Calvinists still want to speak of the process in terms of freedom. They tell us that such a person, once regenerated, will be motivated by the new nature created within and as a result recognize the beauty and value of Christ in such a way that this person will freely, in accordance with the new desires produced by regeneration, turn to Christ. Calvinist John Piper illustrates the point,
The most immediate and decisive work of God in the new birth is that the new life he creates sees the superior value of Jesus over all else. And with no lapse of time at all, this spiritual sight of the superior value of Jesus results in receiving Jesus as the Treasure that he is. (source)
My question pertains to how this faith response can be a theological certainty given the remaining presence of the sinful nature? Unless the sinful nature is wholly overcome or eradicated, what is to prevent the regenerated sinner from yielding instead to the desires and motives still remaining in the sinful nature, and reject Christ?
Many Calvinists seem comfortable with the idea that the sinful nature is at least wholly overcome when the sinner is regenerated. This would explain how the regenerated sinner might be said to “freely choose” Christ without the possibility remaining of the desires of the flesh interfering in the process [3]. But if that is the case, why is it that the sinful nature is able to overcome the godly desires of the regenerated nature and produce sin in the regenerate post conversion?
It seems to me that for the Calvinist to be consistent, he should hold to a view of sinless perfection from the moment of initial regeneration onward, a view of entire sanctification that would even make the strictest Wesleyan uncomfortable. There should never again be a moment when the regenerated believer chooses again in accordance with the sinful nature. If the sinful nature and its desires are wholly overcome at the point of initial regeneration, why should that change? Unless the believer ceases to be regenerated, there should be no reason for the believer to ever sin again [5]. Sin should no longer be possible. But Calvinists do not believe this. It is contrary to both Scripture and reality.
This is likely the reason why some Calvinists are even comfortable in saying that while initial conversion is monergistic, sanctification is synergistic (which creates further difficulties for both Calvinist theology and Calvinist polemics: see here and here). But I have yet to see an explanation as to why this should be the case, given the Calvinist assumptions on how the newly regenerated nature apparently operates to guarantee the person will “freely choose” Christ.
So it seems to me that the Calvinist has some issues to work out. If the newly regenerated nature does not wholly overcome the sinful nature, guaranteeing a positive response to Christ, then it can only be said to enable the sinner to choose between competing motives. If that is the case, then Calvinism will quickly find its accounting of initial conversion to have no practical difference from that of Arminian prevenient grace. Irresistible grace suddenly becomes resistible, in which case we gladly welcome the Calvinist to the Arminian camp.
On the other hand, if the Calvinist wants to maintain that the regenerated nature eradicates or wholly overcomes the sinful nature, they need to explain how or why this should suddenly change after initial regeneration so that the regenerated nature’s desires are often overcome, evidenced by the sinful choices that believers still occasionally make after conversion [6]. If the Calvinist answer is to make sanctification synergistic, then the Calvinist needs to also explain how synergistic sanctification isn’t sanctification “by works” in accordance with the Calvinist charge that Arminian synergistic conversion amounts to salvation “by works”?
Conclusion:
In light of the above questions and potential inconsistencies created by the Calvinist accounting of the conversion process, there is need for theological precision on the part of the Calvinist regarding the specifics of the claim that regeneration causes faith in the sinner. There is especially need for precision regarding the claim that regeneration causes the sinner to “freely” embrace Christ. It is not that this issue, in general, necessarily presents an impossible or fatal problem for Calvinism (though the specific claim that we can “freely” choose something that has been predetermined or necessitated is incoherent, see footnote # 3 below), but it does mean the Calvinist has some explaining to do as to how their view makes sense, and at the very least, exposes a need for Calvinists who make such arguments to be more careful and precise in explaining how and why regeneration causes faith in the sinner, as well as explaining how and why this process should change post conversion.
Link to original post and comments
___________________________________________________________
[1] See the last two paragraphs of my post, Fletcher on Being “Dead in Sin” Part 2
[2] I refer to the person as a “regenerated sinner” for the sake of illustrating that we are speaking of the regenerated person logically prior to coming to faith.
[3] See my post, The Reality of Choice and the Testimony of Scripture, for why I find the language of choice to be wholly incompatible with Calvinist determinism.
[4] Here it is proper to speak of the regenerated person as a believer rather than a sinner since we are now focusing on the person’s state after regeneration has produced faith. Strangely, if my observations are correct, the Calvinist might be forced to view the will of the regenerated “unbeliever” as stronger than the will of the regenerated “believer”. This makes one wonder why faith should not be considered a detriment to the person’s ability to resist sin, which is obviously in sharp disagreement with the testimony of Scripture (e.g., Eph. 6:16; 1 John 5:4; Acts 26:18).
[5] In fact, it is often Calvinists who tend to emphasize the Christian’s weakness as a sinner (e.g., see the typical Calvinist interpretation of Romans 7). I have often interacted with Calvinists who claim that Christians sin “a thousand times a day”, or something similar.
[6] See my post, Sanctification by Works? It should also be noted that Calvinists seem to view resistible grace as no grace at all. For this reason, Calvinists say that Arminians deny salvation by grace because Arminians see such saving grace as resistible. But if the Calvinist holds to synergistic sanctification then the Calvinist must admit that resistible grace is no less grace than irresistible grace. If that is the case, the Calvinist insistence that Arminianism does not teach salvation by grace is shown to be completely baseless. Sadly, Calvinists seem to keep ignoring such obvious inconsistencies and continue to libel Arminianism as a system of “works salvation.”
Leave a Reply