Rev. 3: 20 & Calvinism

Recently a brother who I have had a few debates with, is having another debate (he has had many) with a Calvinist and he sent me the following as an argument he plans to use against the Calvinist.

Revelation 3:20 - “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him …” 

 

Calvinism’s version – “… Behold, I don’t stand at the door; instead I knock it down: only the elect will be allowed to hear my voice, and they will not need to open the door, as I will already have come in to him …”

"Instead I knock it down" is a hot shot at the Calvinistic doctrine of "irresistible grace," also known as "effectual calling."

"Only the elect will be allowed to hear my voice" is a hot shot at the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election.

"they will not need to open the door, as I will already have come in to him" is a hot shot against some Calvinists who teach that one is regenerated, born again, or saved before evangelical conversion (i.e. the "ordo salutis").

First, I must admit that the rewording of the text by this debater shows that he is a skilled debater, or perhaps we might even say a skilled Sophist. His caricature of Calvinism took less than a minute to utter and yet a Calvinist in response would be forced to spend much more time replying to it. 

Second, if I were a novice in bible knowledge my initial reaction would be to reject Calvinism. It certainly paints Calvinism in a bad light, or to use a bible expression, causes "the way of truth to be evil spoken of." (II Peter 2: 2)

Third, in replying as a Calvinist against this caricature I want to make it clear that I will respond as an evangelistic Calvinist, and not as a Hyper Calvinist.

Observations

First, let me address his comments on the doctrine of "irresistible grace." I have heard other similar attacks against Calvinism's doctrine of effectual calling. In all of them the basic idea that is attacked is one where God is seen in Calvinism as "forcing" salvation on those who do not want it. 

First, so what if salvation or spiritual life is in some ways "forced"? Is all forcing wrong? What if we used a similar word to "force," for that word has a negative connotation, being an "emotive" word designed to stir up prejudice. Suppose the one standing at the door of a house is a fireman or policeman, would it be wrong for him to force his way into the house to save the occupants from a fire? Or to arrest the occupants? Suppose a person in the house has "fallen and can't get up"? 

What if we used the words "conquered" or "overcame" instead of "forced," would that make a difference? Instead of forcing a decision, or forcing the will, suppose we said conquering the will? Or, what if we used the word "compelled"? That certainly is a bible word. Jesus said that those speaking in his name to lost sinners should "compel" them to come. (Luke 14: 23) What about the word "constrained"? Is that not a kind of forcing, or compelling? Paul said that "the love of Christ constrains us." (II Cor. 5: 14) People every day say "I was forced to..." That is not always said in a negative way either. Love forces us to do things we would not rather do. Further, think of the word "pry," as in "I pried it loose with a lever or pry bar." Does God not use force (power) in his operations upon the depraved heart and will? 

Does God have any difficulty getting his foot inside the door of a sinner's heart? Good door to door salesmen know how to get their foot in a door and gain entrance into a house. Is God not able enough to do so? Does he lack the wisdom and power to gain entrance into a house? Is anything too hard for the Lord? 

I often point out to Arminians who argue this way how their system has God forcing conviction of sin, or guilt in the conscience, on sinners. Why is that okay but not forcing conviction of other truths, such as conviction of the fact that one is not only lost but that salvation is only in Christ and by believing in him? Did not Jesus say of the Holy Spirit: 

"And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged." (John 16: 8-11 nkjv)

The text indicates complete success for the Holy Spirit in this work. The text does not merely say that the Holy Spirit will try (and often fail) in this work. The text says "He WILL," or "He SHALL." The text does not say the Holy Spirit will convict as long as he gets the permission of sinners to do so or does not resist. 

There certainly was a good bit of "forcing" or "over powering" of Saul of Tarsus when the Lord appeared to him on the Damascus Road and brought about his conversion, or a change in his heart and will. In that experience the Lord changed the mind of that persecutor so that he became a firm believer in Jesus of Nazareth. Further, his work on Paul on that occasion was done without the permission of the apostle. The apostle Paul says of the Lord and his working in these words: "according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself" (Phil. 3: 21 nkjv). Is he not able to subdue or conquer the stubbornness of the depraved heart? If it is a battle of wills, God's will to save versus the sinner's will to not be saved, who will win? Granted, the Lord often allows the will of the sinner to have the victory. But, who can deny that when the Lord especially wills something be done in the heart of a sinner, when he turns up the amount of force/power applied, that the sinner will be conquered? Do not parents force children to take medicine that they don't want to? Is that wrong? Is there any sinner who has had God to overpower his will who has complained about it? 

Is God in control of the will or not? Is the will free of God's influence and control? Do not the scriptures teach otherwise? Here is what king Solomon said about it: "The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes." (Prov. 21: 1 nkjv) There are lots of texts that affirm the same thing. Paul is an example of this truth. On the Damascus Road the Lord Jesus turned the heart of the persecuting Saul away from unbelief and impenitence unto faith and repentance. Further, the prophet spoke like a Calvinist when he said to God "turn me and I shall be turned." (Jer. 31: 18). He did not say "turn me and I may or may not be turned." Further, did not Solomon also say:

"Unless the Lord builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the Lord guards the city, The watchman stays awake in vain" (Psa. 127: 1 nkjv)?

That verse absolutely says that God does not fail and that all success depends upon him. Also, we may apply the sentiments of this text to Rev. 3: 20 and say "unless the Lord knocks on the door they labor in vain who knock on the door." We may also call attention to the words of the apostle Paul who wrote the following: "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase." (I Cor. 3: 6 nkjv) So, we could say, "Paul and Apollos knocked on the heart's door, but God gave the access." 

I also find it interesting in light of the caricature of Calvinism put forth by this Sophist debater that he misses another verse in the book of Revelation that helps explain Rev. 3: 20. That verse reads as follows:

"These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens” (Rev. 3: 7 nkjv). 

That is a citation from Isaiah 22: 22 and is stated as being an attribute of Deity. Further, we read in the bible of Lydia "The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul" (Acts 16: 14 nkjv). I don't see where there is any intimation in these texts that the Lord's success in opening hearts is dependent on the will of the sinner allowing God to do so. God changes the will when and where it pleases him. Notice these words of the Psalmist: "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" (Psa. 110: 3 kjv). Where God puts forth "the exceeding greatness of his power" the sinner's heart and will are changed. (Eph. 1: 19) There Paul is emphatic and says that sinners believe "according to the working of his mighty power," the same kind of power put forth to raise up Christ from the dead. Was that not irresistible power? 

The apostle also had the same idea about God's effectual work on the obstinate and stubborn wills of lost sinners, saying "it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2: 13 nkjv). So, what is the determining factor regarding the success of this work of God? Is it not the amount of power put forth by the Lord? It takes a certain amount of power to pry a sinner away from his attachment to idols. There is a certain amount of power exerted on all men in prying them. Sometimes the amount of power put forth by God is not enough to pry away the sinner. This would be equivalent to what theologians call "common grace" or "common operations of the Spirit." But, where the prying (forcing) is successful, is it not because the force in prying is greater than the power resisting? And, will the Arminians tell us what limits are placed upon God in this area? When will his exertion of power or influence step over the line and become "coercion" according to them? Did the Lord go too far in regard to changing the heart, mind, and will of Saul on the Damascus road? 

Finally on this point, who gets the credit or praise for the sinner's change of will? Is it the sinner or God or both? Also, why does one sinner submit to God's will and another does not? What made the difference? It is not sufficient to say that each had "free will," for that does not answer the question. Why do two people who both have free will choose one way and another chooses the other way? To say that the bible does not tell us is not true. Paul ascribed the change of will to the working of God's mighty power, as we have seen. God alone gets the credit for a sinner's heart and will being changed. 

Another observation to be made is the fact that there are various kinds of door knocking and various kinds of voices uttered by those who knock on doors. Sometimes there is gentle knocking, of the ordinary kind. On the other hand, there is what we call "banging on the door." A fireman may do the latter due to the immanent danger of fire inside the house. They often do this because they want to make sure the people inside hear it and wake up if they are asleep. There is therefore soft knocking and hard knocking. Again, this would be analogous to common grace versus special grace. The Lord certainly knocks hard enough to get the attention of the occupants of the house. Further, what he says to those who come to the door also has a large part in determining whether or not those knocking at the door are invited into the house. Again, there is that common voice which Christ says to all who hear the gospel, but who can deny that there is that special calling of the Spirit which is always efficacious? Did not the prophet say "He speaks and it is done"? (Psa. 33: 9) And did the Psalmist also not say:

"3 The voice of the Lord is over the waters; The God of glory thunders; The Lord is over many waters. 4 The voice of the Lord is powerful; The voice of the Lord is full of majesty. 5 The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars, Yes, the Lord splinters the cedars of Lebanon. 6 He makes them also skip like a calf, Lebanon and Sirion like a young wild ox. 7 The voice of the Lord divides the flames of fire. 8 The voice of the Lord shakes the wilderness; The Lord shakes the Wilderness of Kadesh. 9 The voice of the Lord makes the deer give birth, And strips the forests bare; And in His temple everyone says, "Glory!" (Psa. 29: 3-9 nkjv)

When the Lord speaks in this manner to sinners, they cannot ignore him. Yes, sinners often fail to heed the voice of the Lord. Yet, is that not because of the kind of speaking, or the tone and tenor, of the Lord's words? 

Further, historic Calvinism has always been evangelical, and found no compunction in calling upon the lost to give their hearts to the Lord. I wrote an article on this titled "Calvinist Extremism" (See here). Like our departed brother, Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, we have a "Calvinist Flyswatter" where we swat the extremist statements of some Calvinists. Keep in mind also that there are Hyper or Extreme Arminians too, and they often make statements that ought to be swatted by other classical Arminians. We plead with sinners, or perhaps more correctly, the Lord pleads with sinners through us. (See II Cor. 5: 20) So, why is his pleading successful in one case and not another? First, regarding the successful cases, is it not because he exerts more than ordinary influence? Second, is it not because God has chosen one to be the recipient of that special grace and omnipotence? 

What I defend is the concept that God can save a sinner any time he pleases to do so. If that is not true, then there is no need for any believer to pray to God and say "Lord, save sinner X." Also, no need to pray "Lord change the heart and mind of sinner so and so." Did not Paul say that his prayer to God was that sinners be saved? (Rom. 10: 1) If Arminianism is true, then God would respond in many cases by saying to Paul - "I would love to save him but he won't let me." Or, "Paul, it is not up to me, but up to the sinner alone." 

I would also ask my Arminian brother who gave us the above caricature of Calvinism whether God knocks on the door of the sinner's heart by means of the sinner hearing the gospel and word of God? Do those who live and die without knowing anything about Christ also experience the Lord's knocking at the door of their hearts? If it is only through hearing the gospel that any can be saved (or hear the knocking and the voice), then it seems that this brother has taught a kind of election, for some God in his providence insures that they will not die without hearing the gospel and yet others he lets die without hearing it. But, more on the election question shortly.

I certainly don't agree with those Calvinists who attempt a rebuttal to arguments on Rev. 3: 20 by saying "the text is addressed to the church, to those already saved, and therefore is not talking about how one is initially saved but is talking about how communion is enjoyed by those already saved." The people addressed were clearly not saved, even though they were members of the church. All must admit that some members of local churches are not really saved. (See my postings on this here and here and here)

I wonder how the above Arminian would respond to a critic of the bible who would give such a caricature of Rev. 3: 20 as this: "Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone will hear my voice I will come into him and commune with him, and if he does not open the door I will burn his house down and send him to the eternal flames." Would it not take you a long time to answer that objection? Though it is true, does it not put the truth in a bad light? Further, are these caricatures of Calvinism a case of over simplification of a complex issue? The fallacy of oversimplification is a logical fallacy that occurs when a complex issue is simplified to the point that it implies a single cause is responsible for an event. It's also known as the fallacy of the single cause, causal oversimplification, or reduction fallacy. 

Now, let us say a few words about the Calvinist and bible doctrine of election and the Arminian statement in the caricature that said "Only the elect will be allowed to hear my voice."

First, it is not true that Calvinists believe that only the elect hear the voice of Christ. It is true that the elect hear the voice in a positive way, but it is not true that the unelected do not hear it in a negative way or in a way that does not end with their salvation or faith in Christ. Of hearing it in a saving way, as the elect do, much of the tenth chapter of the gospel of John explains this. Christ said all the sheep will hear his voice and follow him and not hear the voice of strangers. If "sheep" is a synonym for "elect," which it is, then it is true that only the elect savingly hear the gospel or voice of the Lord. On the other hand, those who are not chosen to salvation are described in these words of Christ to them: "Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word." (John 8: 43 nkjv) These non elect were hearing the voice of Christ on one level, but not on another. 

What would our Arminian brother say in rebuttal to a caricature of his views on Rev. 3: 20 by saying "only those who hear the gospel will be allowed to hear my voice"? He seems to despise Calvinism because it pictures God as showing favoritism, of being seemingly discriminatory and unfair. How would he respond to the bible critic who says God is not fair because he did not give all a chance to be saved, or at least not an equal chance to be saved? About being elect before one is called to salvation, this is what the bible says. In Romans 8: 28-30 it is the people who have been foreknown and predestined who are called. Also we read these words in the book of Acts: "for I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have many people in this city." (18: 10 nkjv) By "many people" is clearly those who have been chosen to salvation. But, even clearer to the point are these words of Paul:

"Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." (II Tim. 2: 10 nkjv)

Notice that these people are elect before they hear Paul preach and are saved by him. Further, it is seen in the case of Paul's conversion, for the record says:

"Then he said, ‘The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth." (Acts 22: 14 nkjv)

Notice that the text does not say that God chose Paul because he knew God's will, and had seen him by an eye of faith, and obediently heard the voice of his mouth. Rather, he was chosen to those things, therefore the choice preceded the effects. The Arminian turns things around, gets the effect before the cause, or the cart before the proverbial horse. The Psalmist also chimes in on this point, saying: "Blessed is the man You choose, And cause to approach You, That he may dwell in Your courts." (Psa. 65: 4 nkjv) Which came first? God's choosing or the sinners approaching? What was the "cause" in the text and what is the effect?

I wonder whether our Arminian brother thinks God discriminates or chooses in anything, in things not dealing with eternal salvation? Listen to what Paul said about the matter: "For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" (I Cor.4: 7 nkjv)

Of course, the implied answer is God. He is the one who makes the difference. And, that is the principle of the doctrine of election. Why did God choose Israel to the special blessings and privileges they had? Listen to the oracle of God:

"6 “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. 7 The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; 8 but because the Lord loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." (Deut. 7: 6-8 nkjv)

Seems like it is clear that the Lord did not choose Israel because of any superiority they had over other nations. There was nothing that Israel did that moved the Lord to choose them. His choice of them was a matter of pure grace and special favor. Though it was not a choice to eternal salvation but to earthly and temporal blessings, yet it was still an act of favoritism. God does not owe any sinner anything. Whatever good he receives is the result of grace. So Paul says:

"But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (I Cor. 15: 10 nkjv)

When Paul says "not I," he is saying "not by my will and efforts," not according to my free will decision. Or, "not by my initiation and change of myself by myself." Also, he obviously has reference to special grace and not to common grace.

Finally, let us consider these words of caricature: "they will not need to open the door, as I will already have come in to him"

Well, again, this might be a true representation of Hyper Calvinism, but not true Calvinism. It was certainly not the view of John Calvin. Only Hyper Calvinists say one is born again before faith, before he is converted. But, the bible and true Calvinism says no such thing. A sinner is not saved, not regenerated, before he opens the door of his heart for the Lord to come in to dwell and to save. That does not mean, however, that God does no working on the heart, mind, and will of a sinner before he opens the door of his heart. Also, it is no contradiction to say of the same door opening that the Lord opened it and the sinner opened it. There are many examples in scripture where God is said to do the very thing sinners are said to do. We have already read where the Lord opens and no man shuts, and of how he opened the heart of Lydia to hear the gospel. So, though God works on the heart of the sinner prior to his regeneration, this pre-regeneration work is not regeneration itself. It is putting regeneration too early in the process. So, we can say that the Lord "comes" to every sinner in a sense other than regeneration prior to his regeneration. Even the Arminian must agree with this. In the text under dispute the knocking and speaking of the Lord precedes the opening of the door by the sinner. 

I could say more, but you see how smart a tactic it was for this Arminian brother to give the caricature he gave for it took him little time and yet it has taken me a lot of time to respond to it. It takes longer to clean up a mess than to make one. Needless to say the caricature is in many ways a misrepresentation and gives a biased perspective on the passage and its relation to Calvinism. 

I do not believe Calvinism is the pearl of great price and I do not believe in riding it as a hobby horse. But, that does not mean that I totally avoid the controversy. The caricature sent to me moved me to respond to it. I try to get along with my Arminian brothers, especially those who emphasize evangelism. Historically, evangelicals in both traditions have been able to work together in mission work and in spreading the knowledge of God. Where there is intolerance, and a lack of love and forbearance, such cooperation is not capable.