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 Fide, Part One

Our journey through the Five Solas continues, and today we're looking at Sola Fide: Faith alone.

The Catholic Church taught that Salvation is gained by a combination of faith and works, and that you must have both to be able to be saved. The Protestants objected to this teaching with Sola Fide, which said that salvation is by faith alone, not by works or by faith+works.

Some of us don't realize (and others forget) just how important Sola Fide is. The doctrine is what separates not only the Protestants from the Catholics, but it's what separates Christianity from almost all other religions and cults. Most other belief systems emphasize works, and that you can only gain your salvation by completing certain deeds, living a certain way, or by doing certain things. Christianity is the only belief system that recognizes the fact that mankind can never achieve salvation through his own accomplishments, because "all our righteous acts are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6).

But is Sola Fide biblical? Does the Bible really teach that salvation is by faith alone? The answer is yes.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." (John 5:14)

"Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.'" (John 6:29)

 "All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." (Acts 10:43)

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28)

These are just a few verses that serve to prove that we are justified by faith, and not by our works. However, I'm going to go a step further and say that if good works were required for salvation, then nobody would get saved, because of our sinful nature.

Isaiah 64:6 says that:

"all our righteous acts are like filthy rags." 

Psalm 53:1-3 says:

"The fool has said in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none who does good. God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God. Every one of them has turned aside; They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one."

Psalm 14 and Romans both echo the same thing. It's clear that man cannot do good works apart from God's grace (and I'll talk more about this when we get back to Total Depravity). If man can't do good works outside of salvation, then he can't save himself by said works.

In summary, Sola Fide s a Biblical doctrine, and the Reformers were right to challenge the Catholic Church's false teaching that works contribute to salvation. We are justified by faith alone!

Stay tuned for the next post, which will deal with common objections to Sola Fide.