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!

Sola Fide: Part 2

Sorry this post is a little late. Today we'll be dealing with common arguments against Sola Fide.

Martin Luther said that Sola Fide was the "doctrine by which the church stands or falls." But can it stand up to the opposing arguments? Let's take a look.

James 2:14-26
James 2 seems to be the go-to passage for Catholics who want to promote Salvation by faith+works. Here's what the passage says in full context:

'What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.'

By this passage alone, it may seem like Salvation is by a combination of faith and works. But you have to understand what James is talking about here. The key verses are 17 and 18:

Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

James is not saying that salvation is a combination of faith and works. He's saying that true faith will produce good works, and that faith that does not produce works is no faith at all. Works are a result of salvation, not the other way around.

Abraham
After James 2, those trying to promote justification by works like to point to Abraham. Abraham is mentioned in the above passage, reproduced below:

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."

This passage refers to Genesis 22, where God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac. Genesis 22:1 says:

"Some time later God tested Abraham."

What was this a test of? When we read the chapter, it becomes clear that it was a test of Abraham's loyalty, his trust, his faith in God. Abraham's works are not what saved him. He had a covenant with God long before God brought along this test, and was already saved by his faith. Abraham's obedience to God was an outward manifestation of hi faith. His faith produced his works, and his works bore evidence of his faith. In Genesis 22 verse 12, God says to Abraham:

"Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

Abraham proved he was faithful to God by his actions. That's what James is talking about when he says "Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?"  

"Now wait a minute" you say. "That sounds like salvation by faith+works." Well, it's not. Do faith and works work together? Absolutely. One without the other, as James tells us, is dead. But do works contribute to our salvation? No. If that were the case, then Christ's death on the cross was not sufficient for salvation, because we must work to earn it. Faith is what saves, works are the natural by-product.

Sola Fide creates false converts who continue in sin
A variation of this argument is also used against Perseverance of the Saints, the doctrine represented by the "P" in TULIP. It basically says that people who believe Sola Fide (or Perseverance of the Saints) take a "once saved, always saved" approach to salvation, thinking that since they're saved by faith, that they don't need to do any good works. They think that they can just say a prayer, maybe get baptized, and then live a sin-filled life doing whatever they want because they're saved by faith. But this is not the case.

As we discussed above, true faith will produce good works. If someone claims to be a Christian but lives a sinful life, then it's clear that they don't have true faith. "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:17-20). Sola Fide does not produce false converts who continue in sin. People continue in sin because they do not have true faith. If they had true faith, they would produce good works naturally.

Matthew 21

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." (emphasis added)

Does this mean that we're saved by works and not faith? Not really. Catholics often overlook or leave out the following verses:

"Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’"

Sounds like good works, doesn't it? But what does Jesus say?

"And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"

This passage does not advocate salvation by works+faith. These people had good works, didn't they? But Jesus says they practice lawlessness. Their works had no faith behind them, and thus, were dead.

There are other verses like this which seem to indicate that works contribute to salvation. But on closer inspection, we find the same thing: Salvation is by faith, and good works are the result. Not the other way around. Hebrews eleven rams this point home quite nicely.

"By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, “and was not found, because God had taken him”; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
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.

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised."

This passage lists the many good works done by these Bible heroes, but the repeated phrase is always this: "By faith."

Well, that's what I could find. I recommend that you do your own research on the subject, you're bound to learn some really good stuff. As last time, if you think I didn't do justice to a certain objection, or have heard of another argument that you want to see addressed, leave a comment! I'll see what I can do for you. :)

Stay tuned for the next post, which is on Sola Gratia!

Sola Scriptura: Part Two

Now we come to the second part of our two-part series on Sola Scriptura, as we make our way through the Five Solas of the Reformation. In this post, we will be tackling the most common objections, arguments, and scripture verses used to try to debunk Sola Scriptura. Let's get right to it.

Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible!
We already dealt with this in the last Sola Scriptura post, but I thought it would be good to mention it again. Though Sola Scriptura isn't explicitly mentioned in the Bible, it can be logically inferred from what is taught in the scriptures.

Until the invention of the printing press, the Bible was not readily available for most Christians. How could they possibly have applied Sola Scriptura?
This argument is usually brought up by Catholics, in an attempt to justify tradition. If the Bible isn't available, than tradition is necessary, and Sola Scriptura is impractical at best. But here's the problem: the Bible's authority is not based on it's availability. The Bible is the word of God, and thus, its authority is universal, regardless of its whether or not you have access to it.

If it weren't for the Catholic Church, you wouldn't even have the Bible!
This argument basically says that we Protestants are shooting ourselves in the foot when we challenge the Catholic Church with Sola Scriptura, since the Catholics are the ones who decided upon and compiled the canon of scripture. Essentially, they say we have the Catholics to thank for the Bible, because we wouldn't have it without them. But that's not quite how it is. We don't have the Bible because of the Catholic Church. On the contrary, we have the Bible in spite of the Catholic Church! Let me explain. For a long time, the Catholic Church didn't want the common person to have access to the Bible, but instead wanted them to rely on the Church to get their daily dose of Biblical truth. The Bible was stuck in Latin, and was not translated into other languages until around the time of the reformation. In this way, the Catholic Church maintained a "monopoly" of sorts on scripture and it's meaning, forcing everyone to accept their interpretation of the scriptures, since the common people of the Middle Ages couldn't read (much less read Latin). It wasn't until the reformers came along that the Bible began getting translated into common languages, and even then the Catholics did everything they could to stop it, by persecuting and excommunicating people such as William Tyndale, John Wycliff, and Martin Luther. If we have anyone to thank for the Bible, it's not the Catholics. It's the Reformers and the printing press.

There are thousands of Protestant denominations! How's Sola Scriptura workin' out for ya?
Catholics argue that Sola Scriptura is a dangerous doctrine, and creates disunity between Christians. Most Protestants hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but how many Protestants agree on what the Bible means? Not many, as is evidenced by the many different Protestant denominations which exist throughout the world. Thus, Catholics say that interpretation of the Bible should be left to the Catholic Church authority and none else. Otherwise, we get the divided mess that Protestantism is.
But this argument doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove that Sola Scriptura is wrong or bad, it just proves that mankind is fallible and tainted by sin, as we pointed out in the last post. And for the record, there is division in the Catholic Church as well. This argument only reinforces the fact that there is no human can infallibly interpret the scriptures, and that includes the Pope.

The Bible says we should follow tradition!
Yet another Catholic argument, used in the defense of the traditions that Sola Scriptura attempts to tear down. I Corinthians 11:2 and II Thessalonians 2:15 are some of the verses Catholics cite. However, we must remember, Sola Scriptura is not an argument against all tradition. It is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical, and anti-biblical traditions.The traditions Paul was referring to in those passages were not in disagreement with scripture. Traditions that do disagree with scripture should be discarded, which is the whole point of Sola Scriptura.

Protestants are being hypocritical when they preach Sola Scriptura. They claim to follow the Bible only, but in reality, they follow the teachings of men such as Calvin and Luther!
Not exactly an argument against Sola Scriptura, but still an argument that I thought was worthy of mention, seeing as I'm a Calvinist and hear this a lot. Here's my answer: Men like Calvin and Luther didn't add their own separate teaching to the Bible, the way the Catholic Church has done. They simply interpreted what the Bible says to get their teachings. Whether their interpretations were correct or not is up for debate, since, as I've said, all men are fallible (including Luther and Calvin). So yes, a lot of Protestants follow the teaching of Luther and Calvin, but said teachings are derived from scripture, not added to it, and thus we are not being hypocritical when we claim Sola Scriptura while following said teachings.

Well, that's it. Six of the most common arguments I could find against Sola Scriptura, refuted. However, this is by no meas an extensive or exhaustive list. There are many more, but it would take a much larger post to address them all. If you think I didn't do a good job refuting these objections, or you know of a specific objection that you haven't heard a good rebuttal to, let me know in a comment, and I'll see what I can do!

Thus concludes our brief look at Sola Scriptura. Next up is Sola Fide!

Sola Scriptura: Part One

Image courtesy of myself

I've been waaay too lazy about getting back into the five points of Calvinism, and so, I will finally be re-booting the series I started a while back. This time though, I'll be starting with the Five Solas of the Reformation first, and then I'll do the five points of Calvinism after that. This posts will be shorter, hopefully sweeter, and Lord-willing, daily. Let's start out with a little history of the Five Solas.

The Five Solas were essentially a theological outline of were the early Protestants stood; specifically, where they believed the then-dominant Catholic Church had gone wrong.

'Sola' means 'Alone' in Latin.The five Solas are as follows:
Sola Scriptura: Scripture alone
Sola Fide: Faith alone
Sola Gratia: Grace alone
Solus Christus/Solo Christo: Christ Alone
Soli Deo Gloria: For the glory of God alone

Today we'll be looking at Sola Scriptura, or "Scripture alone."

What the Protestants meant by Sola Scriptura was that the Bible is the ultimate and infallible authority for Christian doctrine, and as such, that all Christian teachings and practices should be in line with or derived from the Bible, rather than from Papal decree or from tradition.

It's important to point out that Sola Sciptura isn't necessarily an attack on Popes and traditions, as many Catholics portray it. Sola Scriptura is an attack on unbiblical and anti-biblical traditions, where the teaching of man contradicts the Word of God. Purgatory, Indulgences, Praying to Mary/Saints, and divine papal authority are all examples of unbiblical teachings and traditions, which the Protestants disagreed with.

When the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther was told to recant his beliefs, his reply to the Catholic Church was this: “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”

This was the Protestant stance. The Bible, not Popes or tradition, was the ultimate authority by which Christians should live.

But for all the emphasis on scripture, what does the Bible say about Sola Scriptura? Is it taught in the Bible or not? Because if "scripture alone" is not in scripture, then we have a serious logical problem. Let's take a look.

Catholics will be quick to point out that the Bible does not explicitly teach or command Sola Scriptura. So is Sola Sciptura not scriptural then? Someone should make that last sentence into a tongue-twister.

Though the Bible doesn't explicitly teach Sola Scriptura, it does teach it implicitly.

Here's what the Bible says:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

If scripture is God-breathed, then it is infallible and without error, just as God is. Secondly, all that one needs in order to live a life devoted to Christ can be found in the Bible. With the Bible, we are "Complete, equipped for every good work." 2 Peter 1:3 also supports this fact.

"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence"

If we have all things that pertain to life and Godliness, and are equipped for every good work through the Bible, then tacking on extra-biblical teachings and practices and saying that they MUST be observed is wrong.

There are two other facts, things the Bible talks about, which support Sola Scriptura. The first one is Man's sin. We are fallible creatures, and as a result of the fall, none of us are righteous, no, not one (Romans 3:10). We are often wrong, and just as often, we lie. This is true of all mankind, including Popes, Cardinals, Priests, everyone (Romans 3:23).

The second fact is God's Righteousness. I shouldn't need to point out that God is perfect. He cannot make an error or a contradiction, and He cannot tell a lie (Titus 1:2; Numbers 23:19). He is infallible.

What do these two fact tell us? If God is infallible, and Man is fallible, then the situation should be clear. God's Word will always trump man's word. If the two contradict, then God's Word wins all day, every day, and twice on Sunday.

So even though Sola Scriptura is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, it is perfectly in line with what the Bible does say.

In summary, Sola Scriptura is biblical, and the Bible is the only basis for Christian doctrine. As such, all Man-made tradition and teachings should be lined up with and tested by Scripture, and if found to be unbiblical, should be abandoned.

Click here to read the next post on Sola Scriptura, which deals with the objections and arguments against it (which, as we'll see, are quite numerous!)