Noah vs. Calvin: The Flood, the Ark, and Reformed Theology

Artist's rendition of the replica ark that's being built. Honestly, I liked the boxy one better than this new curvy one.

I had the privilege of visiting the Creation Museum in Cincinnati, Ohio this past Thursday. While at the museum, I was exposed to a lot of information about the Flood, Ark, and Noah. I already knew most of what I read there, but I got to thinking: How does the flood and the ark fit with reformed theology?

Noah's faithfulness in building the Ark to be saved from the flood is often pointed to as a metaphor for Christian salvation, and I think we can all agree that it is a good one. However, different denominations have different views of how salvation works, and as such, they have different ways of applying those views to the flood account.

How does Calvinism (which, BTW, technically isn't a denomination) hold up in comparison? Today I wanted to look at two objections involving the flood which are raised against Reformed Theology, one by Catholics and one by Arminians.

We'll start with the Catholic one first.

Like with Abraham, Catholics like to use Noah's example to try to refute the doctrine of Sola Fide, which we covered recently. Noah had to work to build the ark to be saved, and so the Catholics say that we too must work to be saved. This seems reasonable at first. Noah and his family would not have survived if they hadn't built the ark, and so it seems that their salvation would not have been possible without their works... right?

My position on Noah is the same as my position on Abraham. Noah's faith, like Abraham's, is what saved him, and his works, also like Abraham's, were the evidence of that faith. Indeed, Just like Abraham, Noah is listed in the "faith hall of fame" in Hebrews 11.

"By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith."

Though Noah's works did play an important part, we must remember that his works are not what saved him, and that those works were a result of his faith. This same faithfulness to God was the whole reason God had chosen to save Noah in the first place!

Consider: If Noah had works, but not faith, would he have been saved? Nope. He would've been a goner. But could Noah have been saved if he had faith, but not works? Well, if he didn't obey God and work to build the ark, it would be clear that he didn't have any faith at all. However, Noah was saved because if his faith, which produced works.

Now, let's move on to the Arminian objection.

The Arminians try to make the case that Salvation hinges upon man's "free will" because those who perished in the flood did so because they chose, of their own free will, not to get on the ark. This of course flies in the face of election. The Arminians add that, according to recent evidence, there even would've been extra room for these sinners on the ark! But the question is... How much room? Enough to fit every single living human on the ark? This is the glaring problem with this argument. The ark was not big enough to save every single human being, but was only intended to hold a select number, regardless of any "extra room." If the flood account truly is an example of how salvation works, then the Ark serves to bolster rather than refute the doctrines of Election and especilly Limited Atonement. And as we're about to see, God intended for these ungodly to be destroyed, regardless of their "free will."

Arminians will, as is their custom, quote the 2 Peter verse that says God is "not willing that any should perish" (2 Peter 3:9), to say that God wanted the pre-flood sinners to be saved, but God's will was thwarted by their free will. However, it's clear that this verse does not apply, and for two reasons.
The first is that it contradicts with the flood account in Genesis 6, which says this:

"So the Lord said, 'I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created'" (Verse 7)

"So God said to Noah, 'I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.'" (Verse 13)

It's clear. God's intention was to judge the wicked for their sins. He didn't say "I'm gonna send a flood, and any humans that don't get on the ark will die." His purpose was to destroy mankind for their sins. Noah was an exception, and God made a provision for him and his family, but the rest of the world had been condemned, like a global version of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The second reason the 2 Peter verse doesn't apply is that "any" doesn't really mean "any," which should be clear in light of the previous point. So what is meant by "any" in the verse? The answer is in the first part of the verse. Let's look at what it says:

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

The keywords are "promise" and "us." "Us" refers to the elect, to whom this "Promise" is directed at. If you read the whole chapter, you'll see that the promise being referred to is the promise of Christ's second coming, and of the "day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." (verse 7)

Peter is basically saying that the reason it seems like God is taking long to fulfill the promise of his second coming is because all of the elect haven't been brought in yet, and until they are, He's holding off his destruction because He doesn't want them to be included in it. He's not willing that any of the elect should perish, but the ungodly, on the other hand, He intends to destroy (according to verse 7).

Once again, this strengthens Calvinism rather than weakening it. It's clear in the case of God's first as well as second judgement of the world, that God has condemned mankind because of their sins, and that He chose his elect (in the case of the first judgement, Noah and his family) for salvation.

In conclusion, neither argument puts a dent in the tough, biblical, armor of Reformed theology. Both miss the true meaning of the texts they're based out of, texts which actually support a reformed, Calvinistic view of salvation.

Do you think I did justice to these objections? Do you have anything you would add to any of the arguments made in this post? If so, I'd love it if you left a comment!