Arminian Today

I was browsing through an article written by a Calvinist about evangelism and in particular on the issue that many in the visible Church do not know the gospel.  He was angry that the gospel sometimes is reduced to methods instead of seeing the truth of the gospel as in the person and work of Jesus Christ.  In many ways, I agreed with him.  He is absolutely correct that the gospel is not A then B then C.  It is much more than that.  At the same time, I don’t doubt that the gospel is simply enough for us to preach to children or to the uneducated the gospel and they can be saved through Jesus Christ.  His article was good but I do take exception with one major point he makes in the follow ups in the comments.  He notes that Arminians must struggle in preaching the gospel since we believe that man is not a slave to sin and that apart from the work of the Spirit, mankind cannot be saved.  He quotes Romans 8:9 (as does Calvinist apologist James White often times in attacking Arminians).

I find this laughable for several reasons.  First, the author makes a common mistake about Arminianism and assumes that Arminianism equals Pelagianism.  Even Calvinist theologians such as R.C. Sproul believes that most Arminians border on semi-Pelagianism.  I know some Arminians don’t mind this.  One Arminian theologian wrote, “I don’t care what you label me so long as I am biblical.”  Perhaps but the orthodox Church has historically condemned Pelagianism including Arminius.  Arminius wrote that he condemned Pelagianism and did not agree with the Pelagians.  Are we to think then that Arminius really did embrace Pelagianism even if he wrote against it?

Secondly, Arminius believed that mankind was indeed a slave to sin.  Jesus said that whoever sins is a slave to sin (John 8:34).  Arminius never doubted that man was a slave to sin.  Arminius wrote that sin comes from two main sources, our own flesh and Satan:

(1.) The former is Man himself, who, of his own free will and without any necessity either internal or external, (Gen. iii, 6,) transgressed the law which had been proposed to him, (Rom. v, 19,) which had been sanctioned by a threatening and a promise, (Gen. ii, 16, 17,) and which it was possible for him to have observed (ii, 9; iii, 23, 24.)

(2.) The remote and mediate efficient cause is the Devil, who, envying the Divine glory and the salvation of mankind, solicited man to a transgression of that law. (John viii, 44.) The instrumental cause is the Serpent, whose tongue Satan abused, for proposing to man these arguments which he considered suitable to persuade him. (Gen. iii, 1; 2 Cor. xi, 3.) It is not improbable, that the grand deceiver made a conjecture from his own case; as he might himself have been enticed to the commission of sin by the same arguments. (Gen. iii, 4, 5.)

Some Arminians don’t agree with Arminius over this next point but Arminius agreed with the Calvinist of his day over the doctrine of original sin and wrote this:

The whole of this sin, however, is not peculiar to our first parents, but is common to the entire race and to all their posterity, who, at the time when this sin was committed, were in their loins, and who have since descended from them by the natural mode of propagation, according to the primitive benediction. For in Adam “all have sinned.” (Rom. v, 12.) Wherefore, whatever punishment was brought down upon our first parents, has likewise pervaded and yet pursues all their posterity. So that all men “are by nature the children of wrath,” (Ephes. ii, 3,) obnoxious to condemnation, and to temporal as well as to eternal death; they are also devoid of that original righteousness and holiness. (Rom. v, 12, 18, 19.) With these evils they would remain oppressed forever, unless they were liberated by Christ Jesus; to whom be glory forever.

Arminius believed that all of mankind was sinful.

Thirdly, Arminius taught that the work of regeneration was a work of the Spirit.  None can be saved apart from His working and His grace.  Ephesians 2:1-9 is a powerful chapter that shows that in our flesh, we are dead in our sins without the life of God. The only hope we have is the gracious work of God in saving us in His Son.  This salvation is by grace through faith and apart from works (vv. 8-9).  Arminius never doubted this doctrine.

So why accuse Arminians of holding to a doctrine that we don’t hold to?  I know of no Arminian theologians who deny that salvation is a work of God and not by works.  I know of no Arminians who hold that we “will” ourselves to salvation (John 1:12-13).  I know of no Arminians who hold that we are not enslaved to sin.  I know some Moral Government theologians and evangelists who deny much of what I have written here but no Arminians that I know would.  We would embrace the reality that salvation is a supernatural work of God (2 Corinthians 5:17).  We embrace that the whole of salvation is a work of God from beginning to end.  We embrace that mankind, apart from the prevenient grace of God, cannot be saved.  We embrace the fact that our salvation is rested and grounded only in the work of Jesus Christ and not our flesh.

I have been reading Dr. Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology text and I must say that I have been enjoying what I read.  Once again I am struck by how much we classical Arminians have in common with our Calvinist brethren when it comes to theology.  We are much closer than we like to realize.  First cousins would surely apply here.  We must remember that Arminius studied under Beza, the successor of Calvin in Geneva and Calvin’s son-in-law.  Arminius was a Calvinist theologian until he was commissioned by the Calvinists in Geneva to combat the theology of the Anabaptists.  Through his own studies, Arminius became convinced of the errors of Beza.  He still had high regard for Calvin and even noted this about Calvin’s commentaries:

Next to the study of the Scriptures which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin’s Commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself [a Dutch divine, 1551–1608]; for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent spirit of prophecy. His Institutes ought to be studied after the [Heidelberg] Catechism, as containing a fuller explanation, but with discrimination, like the writings of all men.

Arminius believed that the problem was that Calvinists of his day were preaching the catechism without first regarding what Scripture has to say.  In other words, the final question for doctrine was not “what does the Scriptures teach?” but instead it was, “what does the catechism teach.”  Arminius wanted the Synod of Dort to establish that Scripture was to be the final authority and that if the catechism is found in error, we should be willing to change the catechism to reflect sound doctrine.  Few in his day were able to stand against his knowledge and ability to debate the Scriptures.  His early death prevented him from being able to argue at the Synod of Dort and the rest they say is history.

I do take exception early on in my reading with Grudem however.  He notes in passing that if we begin our systematic theology study of salvation with the sovereignty of God, we will no doubt end up Calvinists.  If we begin our studies with the free will of mankind, we will end up as Arminians.  I disagree.  I believe that this is a typical view of Arminianism, they we hold first and foremost to libertarian free will and thus we end up teaching what we teach about God, Jesus, salvation, and man.  This, I believe, is a wrong view of Arminius.  Arminius noted the following in regard to predestination:

1. The first in order of the divine decrees is not that of predestination, by which God foreordained to supernatural ends, and by which he resolved to save and to condemn, to declare his mercy and his punitive justice, and to illustrate the glory of his saving grace, and of his wisdom and power which correspond with that most free grace.

2. The object of predestination to supernatural ends, to salvation and death, to the demonstration of the mercy and punitive justice, or of the saving grace, the wisdom, and the most free power of God, is not rational creatures indefinitely foreknown, and capable of salvation, of damnation, of creation, of falling, and of reparation or of being recovered.

3. Nor is the subject some particular creatures from among those who are considered in this manner.

4. The difference between the vessels to honour and those to dishonour, that is, of mercy and wrath, does not appertain to the adorning or perfection of the universe or of the house of God.

5. The entrance of sin into the world does not appertain to the beauty of the universe.

6. Creation in the upright state of original righteousness is not a means for executing the decree of predestination, or of election, or of reprobation.

7. It is horrid to affirm, that “the way of reprobation is creation in the upright state of original righteousness;” (Gomarus, in his Theses on Predestination;) and in this very assertion are propounded two contrary volitions of God concerning one and the same thing.

8. It is a horrible affirmation, that “God has predestinated whatsoever men he pleased not only to damnation, but likewise to the causes of damnation.” (Beza, vol. I, fol. 417.)

9. It is a horrible affirmation, that “men are predestinated to eternal death by the naked will or choice of God, without any demerit on their part.” (Calvin, Inst. l. I, c. 2, 3.)

10. This, also, is a horrible affirmation: “Some among men have been created unto life eternal, and others unto death eternal.”

11. It is not a felicitous expression, that “preparation unto destruction is not to be referred to any other thing, than to the secret counsel of God.”

12. Permission for the fall [of Adam] into sin, is not the means of executing the decree of predestination, or of election, or of reprobation.

13. It is an absurd assertion, that “the demerits of the reprobate are the subordinate means of bringing them onward to destined destruction.”

14. It is a false assertion, that “the efficient and sufficient cause and matter of predestination are thus found in those who are reprobated.”

15. The elect are not called “vessels of mercy” in the relation of means to the end, but because mercy is the only moving cause, by which is made the decree itself of predestination to salvation.

16. No small injury is inflicted on Christ as mediator, when he is called “the subordinate cause of destined salvation.”

17. The predestination of angels and of men differ so much from each other, that no property of God can be prefixed to both of them unless it be received in an ambiguous acceptation.

Notice that Arminius did not start this with a view of free will.  He begins with the nature of God.  In his writings, Arminius often would begin with the authority of the Scriptures and then move to the doctrine of God.  It was his view of God that led him to reject the Calvinist view of unconditional election.  I don’t doubt that free will does come into factor in Arminius’ view.  But this is after he has established his view that God is first loving toward all of His creation and from this, the love of God for the world, we find Him granting humans free will.

Arminius then begins his theology with the love of God.  In no way does Arminius reject the sovereignty of God.  He affirms it over and over again.  He states this about the creation of mankind:

God can make of his own whatsoever he wills. But he does not will, neither can he will, to make of that which is his own whatever it is possible for him to make according to his infinite and absolute power.

Concerning the free will issue and God’s sovereignty, Arminius wrote,

The infinite wisdom and power of God, by which he knows and is able out of darkness to bring light, and to produce good out of evil. (Gen. i, 2, 3; 2 Cor. iv, 6.) God therefore permits that which He does permit, not in ignorance of the powers and the inclination of rational creatures, for he knows them all, not with reluctance, for he could have refrained from producing a creature that might possess freedom of choice, not as being incapable of hindering, for we have already seen by how many methods he is able to hinder both the capability and the will of a rational creature; not as if at ease, indifferent, or negligent of that which is transacted, because before anything is done he already ["has gone through"] has looked over the various actions which concern it, and, as we shall subsequently see, [§ 15-22,] he presents arguments and occasions, determines, directs, punishes and pardons sin. But whatever God permits, He permits it designedly and willingly, His will being immediately occupied about its permission, but His permission itself is occupied about sin; and this order cannot be inverted without great peril.

So I contend that Arminius doesn’t begin his theology with a focus on the free will of man but instead the doctrine of God.  And I contend further that Arminius doesn’t begin his soteriology with a focus on the free will of man but on the infinite love of God given toward us in Christ Jesus (Romans 5:8-9).

Dr. Jack Cottrell, in the book Perspectives on Election, shows the debate among Arminians concerning predestination.  In Calvinism, predestination is always associated with individuals.  Calvinists acknowledge that God does choose groups to use for His service such as the Israelites but by in large, Calvinists argue that predestination is unto salvation and this is individual in nature.

Arminians, however, disagree even among themselves about the nature of predestination.  Some Arminians hold that God only predestines groups or corporate election.  In other words, a common saying among some Arminians is, “God elects the plan but not the man.”  In this view, God elects the Church but this doesn’t mean that He chooses who is in the Church.  Anyone can be in the Church through faith and those who come into the Church through faith in Jesus become His elect.  God also has elected Jesus Christ to be our Savior.  This election is unconditional.  But salvation into Jesus is very much conditional and while God sovereignly chose Jesus, He allowed Jesus to die for the sins of all so that all can be saved in the elected one.

I do think there is much truth associated with the above view.  Corporate election is biblical.  I see a corporate election in the choosing of Israel.  Deuteronomy 7:7-8 tells us that Yahweh chose the children of Israel by His own sovereign plan and purpose and for His own glory.  Paul establishes this corporate view in Romans 9:1-5.  I, like most Arminians, do not find salvation in this sovereign choosing but to service.  Calvinists such as John Piper in his book, The Justification of God, struggles to find salvation in Romans 9:1-5 while appealing to Romans 9:1-23 as proof that God elects unto salvation those whom He unconditionally chooses.  It is possible to be chosen by God for His service but not be saved as in the case of Pharaoh in Romans 9:17.  Another example of this sovereign choosing is in Jesus’ choosing of the Twelve Apostles in John 15:16.  They were chosen by Jesus to serve Him though I do not see that as individual salvation as in the case of Judas who betrayed Jesus though being one of the Twelve.

I do agree with Dr. Cottrell though in that he writes that predestination can be unto salvation and service.  In the case of Saul of Tarsus, God choose him to service and unto salvation (see Acts 9:15-16).  Some suppose predestination only to a corporate group but that God chooses the Church presupposes that He has chosen individuals to fill that group.  The key to understanding the Arminian view on predestination is to understand our position on foreknowledge.  God foreknows those who are His own.  Romans 8:29-30 makes this clear and the context of Romans 8:29 is not a group but individual salvation.  God foreknows those who are His (1 Peter 1:1-2).  2 Thessalonians 2:13 (NASB) says that God has chosen the believers for salvation.  This salvation is individual.

John writes in 2 John 1 of the “elect lady” (ESV) and this is individual.

Again, the key is that God foreknows those who His.  When we evangelize the lost, it is not our duty to bring them to Jesus for salvation.  We are to witness of Christ but Christ does the saving.  The Church doesn’t save sinners.  Evangelists don’t save sinners.  Jesus saves sinners.  He uses the gospel to draw them to salvation (John 6:44).  Those whom He foreknows will repent of their sins.  That He knows this doesn’t mean that He causes this.  He convicts.  He saves.  But He doesn’t believe for the person.  He simply knows those who will believe the gospel.  He knows this because He knows all things.  Nothing happens that He doesn’t know.  He is infinite in His wisdom (Romans 11:33-36).  Our duty then is not to try to argue people to salvation or to try to persuade them in the flesh to salvation.  Our duty is to preach Jesus Christ and He does the saving.  He draws sinners, convicts them, and converts them (Titus 3:5-7).  The duty of the disciple is to point people to the Savior who alone saves sinners by His grace (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 1:8).

So on the one hand I do believe that God has chosen the Church.  I believe that Romans 9-11 is Paul’s argument against the Jews thinking that God had chosen them simply because of their being Jewish unto salvation.  Paul’s argument is that even though God choose Israel, not all of Israel was part of Israel but only those who believed (Romans 9:30-33; 10:11-13; 10:21-11:16, 20-24, 32).  On the other hand, He has chosen individual people to fill the Church (1 Peter 2:9-10).  He has “predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:5).  We can rejoice that God foreknows all things including our own salvation.  This should humble us.  This should force us to fear Him who saved us by His own grace and power.  That He foreknows our salvation in Jesus is not an issue of pride but great humility as we see what He has done for us in His Son.  Praise Him for His grace!

Dr. Robert Picirilli writes this in his excellent book, Grace, Faith, Free Will (p. 162) about the nature of saving faith:

The nature of saving faith is such that it carries absolutely no merit for the person thus believing.  Biblically, faith stands in antithesis to works.  The believer therefore gets no credit for faith; he is not rewarded for believing.  Faith is nothing more (or less) than receiving a gift.  It is therefore quite the opposite of earning, meriting, or deserving it.  One may illustrate very simply: When I offer someone a gift, the receiving carries no connotation of credit.  Arminius may have had something like this in mind when he emphasized that faith is not so much the instrument (apparently, as a thing or quality) of justification as an act which apprehends Christ on whose account righteousness is imputed to the one believing.  Thus Wood is correct in concluding that “What we have [in Arminius], however, is not a form of synergism in which God’s work and man’s work cooperate, but rather a relationship in which God’s will and work within man is welcomed in an attitude of which trust and submission.

Justification is by faith and not by works.  Though we Arminians stress that God does not force a person to believe nor does He do the believing for a person, we still maintain that a person believes because of the grace of God that enables us to believe (Romans 4:3; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; 3:6; Philippians 3:9; Hebrews 10:38; 11:4).

Praise God for His gift of salvation!  By the way, purchase Picirilli’s book.  It is solid Arminian reading.

The Doctrine Proved by Scripture

Let us now look at what the Scriptures have to say about the total inability of the sinner to obtain salvation.  I noted on the previous post that the term total depravity is probably not the best term to describe the sinner’s position before God.  No doubt we are sinful and depraved (Ephesians 2:1-3) but we are not always as sinful as we could be or others may be.  The point of being dead in our sins as Ephesians 2:1 states is that we are spiritually and morally dead before God.  To be dead in our sins doesn’t mean that we lack the ability to hear the gospel or to see the gospel but we lack the ability to move toward God.  We are totally unable in our own strength to earn God’s perfect righteousness.  We are tainted by sin and even our goodness is tainted by sin as Isaiah 64:6 states.  To be dead in sin does not mean, as Calvinists teach, that we lack even the ability to believe or hear the gospel but it means that we are without the life of God in us.  Adam and Eve were dead in their trespasses and sins after the fall (Genesis 3) but this simply means that they now lacked the ability apart from God to obtain His perfect righteousness that He requires.

Perhaps the strongest verse that teaches the total inability of the sinner to save ourselves is Ephesians 2:8-9.  Here Paul the Apostle states that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works.  Calvinists take the phrase, “that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (NASB) as meaning the gift of faith given to the elect.  Calvinists teach that since humans are dead in their sins, they lack the ability to come to God or even to believe the gospel apart from God regenerating them first.  In Calvinism, regeneration then proceeds faith instead of faith producing regeneration.  I will say more about this viewpoint on another post.  Arminians hold that the phrase, “that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” to be pointing to salvation itself.  The NASB notes in the margin an interpretation here that they believe that salvation is the view in mind as well.  I believe the context would point to salvation.  Ephesians 2:1-7 has been building up to our salvation that God has brought about in Christ Jesus (vv. 4-6) so why would Paul then jump from talking about our salvation to isolating “faith” in Ephesians 2:8?  Furthermore, verse 9 contrasts verse 8.  We are justified by faith (v.9) and not by works (v. 10).

Yet in Ephesians 2:8-9 we see that we are not able to save ourselves through our own good works.  We are saved by God’s grace through faith.  Over and over again the New Testament writers make faith the key issue for justification.  Notice Romans 5:1.  We are justified through faith says Paul.  Notice Titus 3:5-7 where Paul again says that we are saved by God’s grace and not by works of righteousness which we have done.  Jesus Himself says in John 6:29 in reply to the Jews who were asking about the works of God that the work of God was not to earn our way to God but to believe (or have faith) in the one whom He has sent.

In John 1:12-13 we read,

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here John the Apostle states that our salvation comes through faith.  Notice again that when we believe  we become the children of God.  This goes against the Calvinist view that regeneration precedes faith.  If that were true then the verse would say, “But to all who were children of God, he gave the right to believe in his name.”

However, note that the verse shows us that when we believe in the Son of God, we are born again and this is not a birth that comes by our own power.  John states that this new birth comes by the power of God.  We don’t will our way to salvation.  We don’t earn our salvation by our faith.  We are justified before God through Jesus Christ.  Faith is the means to salvation.  The ground for our justification is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:6).  He is our salvation (1 Corinthians 1:30-31).

The Issue of the Gift of Faith

Is faith a gift given to the elect only?  In one sense, faith is a gift.  Arminians don’t deny that the ability to believe must come from God.  We despise God by nature (Romans 1:18-32).  Romans 3:10-18 shows that our entire makeup is sinful and thus we don’t seek after God (v. 11).  Jonah 2:9 states that salvation is of the LORD.  When we come to Jesus for salvation, the Spirit of God must open our eyes to the gospel and He must help us to believe the gospel to be saved.  Two passages that point to this are John 6:44 and Acts 16:14-15.

If this is the case, what are we to believe about an unlimited atonement in relation to salvation by grace through faith.  We believe that since Jesus died for all and all can be saved (John 3:14-16; 12:32; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 1 John 2:1-2), then all can come and be saved through faith in Jesus.  Yet what about John 6:44, 65 or Acts 13:48 or Acts 16:14-15?  Arminianism teaches that a general call goes out for all to come and be saved.  God foreknows those whom are His own (1 Peter 1:2) and His Spirit works on the sinners heart to draw them to the Savior.  In some sense the Spirit is in the world to convict the entire world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8-11) and John 1:9 states that the light that Jesus brings enlightens every man.  The Spirit is working through the gospel (Matthew 28:19) to draw sinners to the Savior.

A couple of points are to be noted.  First, we see the importance of the Holy Spirit in relation to evangelism.  Jesus said that the Spirit would empower us to be His witnesses (Acts 1:8).  How vital it is to be filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49) to be an effective witness for Jesus.  The Holy Spirit gives the Church boldness to witness (Acts 4:29-31) but He alone draws the lost to the Savior.  The duty of the disciple is not to save anyone.  We can’t.  We are sinners in need of a Savior as well.  Our duty is to testify of His grace (Mark 16:15) and to allow the Holy Spirit to take our gospel and open sinners hearts to the truth.  Faith comes by hearing (Romans 10:17) and this happens when sinners hear the gospel and the Holy Spirit opens their hearts to the gospel as Acts 16:14 states about Lydia.

Secondly, we don’t know who the elect of God are so our duty is to preach the gospel to all and allow Him to draw all to Himself.  Whoever comes to Jesus becomes His elect (John 6:37; 1 Timothy 4:10).  1 Timothy 4:10 shows us that Jesus died for all people but only those who receive His gift of salvation are the elect of God.  This does not undermine the teaching that salvation is by grace through faith.  Faith is the opposite of works (Romans 4:5) and all who receive the gift of salvation do so by their own free will though the aid of the Spirit but salvation is still by grace nonetheless (Romans 11:6).  Because I accept a gift doesn’t make it less than a gift still.  I didn’t earn the gift.  I accepted the free gift (Romans 6:23).  Our faith saves us and we must continue in saving faith to remain saved (Romans 11:20-22; 1 Corinthians 15:1-3; 2 Corinthians 1:24; Galatians 5:1-4; etc.).

Next we will take a look at Acts 13:38 as it relates to salvation.

Dr. Wayne Grudem notes that he prefers the term “total inability” above “total depravity” when discussing the issue of sin in the heart of people.  Grudem correctly notes that total depravity can be a bit deceiving as it makes it sound as if people are as sinful as they can be which is not the case for most of us.  Granted the human heart is wicked (see Jeremiah 17:9) but we are not as wicked as others are and perhaps not as good as others are but what is clear is that we are sinful.  We are depraved but perhaps we are not totally depraved as we could be.

With that in mind, Dr. Grudem suggests that we use the term “total inability” to describe the sinner’s condition before God.  I would agree as most Arminians would.  When we speak of the sinfulness of humanity, we agree that our hearts are wicked before a holy God and that apart from His grace, none of us could be saved.  In Calvinism, Grudem and others hold that God has unconditionally elected from the mass of humanity those whom He has chosen for salvation and if He chooses them, sends His Son to die for the elect’s sins then He will surely draw them to salvation by His irresistible grace.  R.C. Sproul notes that there is a general call for salvation that goes out to all people but a special inward call is only for the elect (John 6:37).

Arminians hold that election is conditional.  We hold that God sent His Son for the sins of the whole world (John 1:29) and that all may come to Him for salvation (John 3:16).  We hold that the call for salvation goes out to all but only those who come in faith and repentance become the elect of God (1 Timothy 4:10; 2 Timothy 2:10).  The Holy Spirit works on the sinner’s heart (as in Calvinism but different in respect to the issue of free will and the ability to resist the Spirit) through the gospel to draw the sinner to the Savior.  While the Spirit does not force a person to believe, if the person believes it is because the Spirit of God enabled them to believe.  This is necessary because of the total inability of the sinner to come to salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it clear that salvation is by grace through faith and apart from works.  Romans 4:5 says that our justification is not by works but by faith.  Romans 4:24-5:1 show us that faith produces righteousness before God and justifies us through the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ who provides us peace with God.  1 Corinthians 1:30-31 tells us that it is by His doing that we are in Christ Jesus who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption.  Our boasting then is in God alone and not ourselves for our salvation in Christ.  Jesus alone is the very One who saved us.  We are not saved through any other basis but the work of Jesus Christ on the cross (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 2:12-15).

What total inability then conveys is that none of us can obtain salvation by our good works or by being good people.  Because of our sins, we are guilty before God (Romans 3:23).  The Law of God reveals our sinfulness (Romans 7:7; 1 Timothy 1:8-11) and the Law shows us that none of us have kept God’s Law and we deserve His just punishment against our sins (James 2:10-13).  God’s wrath burns against our sins (Romans 1:18-32) and all of us deserve His justice.  Yet God is merciful toward us and He sent His Son to appease the just wrath of God against our sins (Matthew 26:28; Romans 5:8-9; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21; 1 Thessalonians 1:10).

Because of our sins, we are total unable to come to the Savior for salvation apart from His grace.  By nature, we are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3).  By nature, we despise God and hate Him (Romans 1:21; 3:10-18).  If you slowly read Romans 3:10-18 you’ll notice that the entire makeup of a person is to be found from our throat to our eyes.  Our makeup is sinful.  We love sin.  We despise God’s Law (1 John 3:4).  Were it not for the grace of God, none of us could repent and be saved in Jesus Christ.  We would wander in our sins not seeking after God (Romans 3:11) but hating Him and living in sin.

But God is gracious and He sent His Son to die for us.  Through the gospel, God is drawing sinners to Himself (John 6:44).  Jesus was given over so that we could be saved through Him (John 12:32).  Jesus bore the penalty for our sins.  He was the perfect Lamb of God who died in our place (Isaiah 53:4-6).  “And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed” (1 Peter 2:24 NASB).

We have seen that Jesus bore our sins but next let us look at whether we have examples of total inability in the Scriptures.