This is not merely a conceptual juxtaposition of exposure and concealment—it is the complete, substantive unveiling of the full extent of sin, precisely in its juxtaposition with the full measure of God’s righteousness. That is, sin is exposed as sin only in relation to divine righteousness, and yet it is also hidden by it—counted as dealt with, completed, imputed. The sinner remains sinful, but in relation to God, acceptable. Yet what we are talking about here is not mere divine bookkeeping. These are not solely matters of imputation and exposure in a forensic sense. Rather, they indicate that Man’s corrupt theological instincts—his broken, misdirected notions about God, which though distorted still display some proximity to the Truth—are granted, by God’s grace, a new origin point. From that point, they begin a Holy, though never perfect, re-orientation: an advance toward God, propelled by a reawakened love of Truth.
And what, then, are these corrupt ideas that shape our first instincts about God—the ones that, though false, serve as the point of departure for divine transformation?
It begins with understanding that righteousness and sin are not merely opposing ideas but a metaphysical dyad—a transcendent pair. One cannot speak meaningfully of Christ’s righteousness imputed to man, or of sin and righteousness as theological categories, solely as declarations by divine fiat. If it is not only by God’s fiat, then it must be by some other irresistible force.
That irresistible thing—if we grant it—threatens our autonomy. It introduces responsibility at the very origin of our justification: the responsibility of loving and knowing something specific. We resist this because it exposes us. It would mean our theology must be judged not only by our confessions but by what our hearts are truly set upon. So instead, we make a show of piety by ascribing everything to God while quietly absolving ourselves of real affection. Thus, we invent systems—Pelagianism or its opposites—not because they are more or less sinful, but because they obscure the one fundamental sin: replacing the ultimate with something less.
This results in a theology where man is no longer morally obligated to know any particular truth. The knowledge of God disappears into abstract definitions, where righteousness and sin become mere feelings or forms, unanchored from reality.
This is where the discussion of symbolism becomes vital. If Christ is the symbol of God, then our theology must grapple with that symbol as more than a sign—it must become substance. Otherwise, we are simply rearranging doctrinal furniture. I have said nothing unorthodox; I have simply exposed how our epistemological baggage has taught us to forget what is inseparable from Christ.
Before conversion, the moral man may be dormant, but he is not inoperative. Just as the physical body cannot occupy divine transcendence, yet is necessary to God’s redemptive economy, so too is the spirit of man—not perfect, but not void. It is evil only by contrast to God, not in its essence. Its potentiality rests in its desire for truth. This spiritual yearning, dormant though it may be, is what God uses to overwhelm and transform the sinful symbol by the righteous one—Christ.
Irresistible Grace and Total Depravity: What are they, and in what sense are they irresistible or total? Are they theological truth, or merely linguistic snares—constructs of a carnal theology steeped in object-orientation?
“Grace”—God’s unmerited favor—is the prophetic fulfillment in Christ. To those who love Truth, it is indeed irresistible, not by coercion but by attraction.
But when that grace is understood as the total and exclusive act of God, excluding even the spiritual acknowledgment of the man it saves—when even faith is considered a “work” and thus forbidden—man is reduced to a passive object, a vessel into which salvation is poured without his engagement. This theology denies that man has a body and spirit with any intrinsic ground upon which God can act. It denies that man’s spirit has a structure, a function, or even the possibility of holy volition.
Yet man’s spirit, like his body, is not empty before justification. It has disabled potentiality—not absent, but latent. It awaits fulfillment. It is prophetic in form, awaiting God’s confirmation in substance. Calvinist theology fails to see this because it views prophecy as insufficient epistemic grounding for theological confidence. Thus, it replaces revelation with abstractions, confessions, and logic-chopped piety.
Predestination is central to this. Like Grace, it is cast as an act of God, disconnected from any corresponding human motion. But the very word “predestine” means to speak beforehand, to prophesy. If God prophesies, then man fulfills. And how does man fulfill? Not by effort, but by faith—by spiritual action. Man declares God’s prophecy to be true. That is the spiritual transaction. It is not meritorious—it is revelatory. It is agreement.
The Calvinist collapses this into determinism. But what if we reclaimed predestination as messianic prophecy? Then we would see that God acts sovereignly, and man must respond spiritually. The messianic prophecy is God’s witness; man’s acknowledgment is the only possible human response to it. It is not optional. It is the epistemic task of every soul.
Calvinism strips predestination of this context and leaves it as a divine abstraction—unverified, unaffirmed, untested. Without the prophetic anchor, predestination becomes merely a metaphysical speculation. But with messianic prophecy as its referent, it becomes the most specific and binding word God has ever spoken. Its purpose is not speculation but judgment.
So total depravity becomes a misreading of “work.” In Scripture, “works” are bodily. But spiritual action—faith, belief, love, judgment—are never called “works” by the Apostles, though they are everywhere assumed. These are not meritorious; they are expressive. They are signs—not causes—but they are real signs of real spiritual content. The spirit, unlike the body, cannot act without essence. And essence means volition, affection, truth-orientation.
This leads us to the ontological distinction between content and container. The symbol is a container; its meaning is content. God does not commune with containers, but with content. The body can do things without changing the heart. But the spirit is its motivations, its judgments, its loves. If these are absent or irrelevant, then salvation becomes an arbitrary divine action. That is not biblical. It is mystical determinism masquerading as orthodoxy.
The spirit, then, contains within it the moral and volitional structure God honors. If this were not so, there would be no basis for spiritual responsibility. God does not save because man earns it; He saves because man affirms His work, His truth, His revelation. That affirmation is not physical—it is not work—but it is real, spiritual action. It is consent, not creation. It is judgment, not justification. And it is required.
Calvinism resists this because it suspects that any attribution to man undermines divine sovereignty. But the real threat is the denial of God’s own prophetic Word as the sufficient object of faith. Science denies divine contact; so does Calvinism. Both, in different ways, deny the revelatory event that demands moral judgment. Both prefer systems.
But God saves not through man’s efforts, nor through a concept, but through Christ—the fulfillment of prophecy. He saves when a man sees that fulfillment, believes it, loves it, and holds it. That belief is not a work. It is a response to divine fact. And that response, though initiated by God, is still man’s.
If that is “salvation by works,” then we have misunderstood both work and salvation.
This website uses cookies.