Jerry Walls Refuting Calvinist Soteriology

What Did Christ’s Death Accomplish?

As never ending as this battle is between Calvinists and most of the body of Christ, the answers provided never seem to satisfy the rhetorical inquiries of our Calvinist friends. One of the reasons for this, I believe, is due to the Calvinist tendency to view the extent of the atonement with the purpose of confirming their particular soteriological perspective.  “For God so loved the world” is forced to mean “God so loved His Elect or classes of men in the world”. It amounts to a read of theology into the text of scripture. By doing so, they reject responses that are logical and reasoned from the text of scripture itself. Forlines offers the following perspective and solution to the Calvinist insistence.

“Calvinists argue that, if Jesus paid the full penalty for the sins of the whole race, all for whom Christ died must of necessity be saved. This is true since His death settles their account and therefore forms the necessary basis for their forgiveness. Either Christ died for everybody and everybody would be saved, or He died only for the elect and only the elect will be saved, or so the argument goes. It is thought that for one who believes in the satisfaction view of the atonement that the only way to escape universal salvation is to believe in limited atonement. 

The answer is found in the kind of substitution involved. Christ died for the whole world in a provisionary sense. He suffered the penal wrath of God for sin, but that fact alone does not place His death on everybody’s account. It is effectual for the individual only as it is placed on a person’s account. It can be placed on a person’s account only as a result of union with Christ. Union with Christ is conditioned on faith. 

The Calvinists may want to insist that the objection is valid and that Christ died only for the elect. The only way this argument could have any validity would be to deny the possibility of provisionary atonement. If there can be no provisionary atonement, it does follow that if Christ died for a person his justification is never provisionary but always real. 

In explaining the view of the atonement, Louis Berkhof comments: “The Calvinist teach that the atonement meritoriously secured the application of the work of redemption to those for whom it was intended and their complete salvation is certain”. 

A close look at what Berkhof said will show that it does not rule out the provisionary principle in atonement. He says that the atonement “makes certain” the salvation of those for whom it was intended. He did not say that the atonement automatically saved everybody for whom it was intended. Calvinists do not teach that the elect are justified before they experience faith.  They teach that the person for whom Christ died will of a certainty be justified, but they do not consider a person justified until he experiences faith as the condition of justification. Thus, atonement is provisionary until the time it is applied. The only way to deny the provisionary nature of the atonement is to consider all people for whom Christ died to be justified before they experience faith. 

Once we accept that atonement is provisionary, we invalidate the objection that penal satisfaction either leads to universalism or limited atonement. Provisionary atonement applied on the condition of faith and on the grounds of a union with Christ answers this objection and sustains the penal satisfaction view.” 1

Therefore with that last portion of Forlines statement we can turn to John 3:16 and accept it as given rather than reinterpret the passage through any manner of sectarian lens. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16 AV)

To ask the question what did Christ’s death accomplish is little different from asking for whom did Christ die for. Jesus accomplished a propitiatory sacrifice reconciling God with man and made individually efficacious through faith and union with Christ. He accomplished a great and glorious provision through which all men might be saved even though I believe most are not and that due to their love of their sins and rejection of the things of God. Much more could be stated however I would recommend a particular resource in addition to Forlines. The Arminian Confession of 1621 would be an excellent source to gain a much greater perspective of Arminian theology on a number of topics. 2

1.       Classical Arminianism, F. Leroy Forlines, ed. J. Matthew Pinson, Randall House, Nashville, 2011 pp 192-193  

2.       The Arminian Confession of 1621, trans & ed. Mark A. Ellis, Pickwick, Wipf and Stock, Eugene, 2005

Common Sense Christian Understanding of the Gift of Faith - Forlines

F. Leroy Forlines offers what I have found to be one of the best concise explanations of the gift of faith in the brief statement below. It effectively silences the Calvinist harp of monergism with regard to faith and presents the common sense Christian understanding of the synergistic nature of faith.

I believe that saving faith is a gift of God in the sense that the Holy Spirit gives divine enablement without which faith in Christ would be impossible (John 6:44). The difference between the Calvinistic concept of faith and my concept of faith cannot be that theirs is monergistic and mine is synergistic. In both cases it is synergistic. Active participation in faith by the believer means that it must be synergistic. Human response cannot be ruled out of faith. Justification and regeneration are monergistic. Each is an act of God, not man. Faith is a human act by divine enablement and therefore cannot be monergistic. - Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, Forlines, ed. Pinson, Randall House Nashville, 2011, p.24

Lydia, A Woman of Faith and a Recipient of Prevenient Grace

And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. (Ac 16:14 AV)

A proof text for those who advocate a pre-faith regeneration, the above passage is sometimes abused by those who tend to read their theology into the text, a careless exercise by any measure.  Lydia has been presented as an unbeliever whose worship was tainted by insincerity. Is there any truth to that? There is nothing in the text to indicate any sense of vain worship. There is no revelation of her being far from the heart of God. It merely tells us that she worshiped God. Being from Thyatira or the modern city of Ahkisar in central Turkey (to the north-northeast of Ephesus), Lydia was a Gentile proselyte to the Hebrew faith. This tells us she came out of her heathen life and embraced the God of the Hebrews. The passage tells us at least that much, she worshiped God. This indicates that rather than being regenerated when God “opened” her heart in this instance, she came out of whatever depravity she was born into prior to the visit by Paul and the others of his entourage. By worshiping God, she was already a woman of faith. Granted, her faith had not been converted to Christ at that point but then, neither had King David’s faith been such in his day. Should we suggest that David’s faith and worship was done in vain? God forbid for the scriptures tell us he had a heart after the LORD.

It is important to recognize that not all of Judea was swallowed up in vain worship tainted by the religious rulers of the day. The bible tells us God has always had a remnant of believers among His people. Given the text, it seems entirely reasonable that God saw Lydia as one of that faithful remnant and when the time came for that Gospel to be preached, He provided the grace necessary to fully comprehend and embrace that Gospel. If Lydia is said to have worshiped God, it seems short sighted and rather hasty to delegate her to the spirit of this world rather than being of God the Father. To do so in order to further a philosophical, dogmatic teaching is, in my opinion, damaging to one’s faith in the veracity and infallibility of scripture. A surprising defense of this reading into scripture has been the suggestion that Luke was merely passing on his opinion of Lydia’s outward appearance of religion rather than the indicated truth of Lydia being a worshiper of God. That is quite convenient but at what point do we accept what the Bible instructs as truth rather than question that given truth? If the Bible tells us that someone worships God and gives absolutely no indication of a vain faith, we should accept what scripture tells us rather than try to force it into a poorly fitted argument.

The doctrine of pre-faith regeneration is forced upon this passage because it has God’s work of grace preceding the delivery of the Gospel through which faith comes to those who hear. However, God’s prevenient grace better matches the narrative especially when regeneration is regarded as that born again experience proceeding from the burying of the old self through conviction and repentance. As  a proselyte, Lydia was converted from her heathenism and entered the fellowship of those who worshiped the one true God, the God of the Hebrews. God tells us so in His very word. Lydia worshiped God. Whether one wishes to argue that regeneration precedes faith or not, it would have to go to the place where Lydia ceased being an unbeliever in the God of the Hebrews under the old covenant. It has to go to the same place that such occurred to David and every other saint who worshiped God, assumingly in truth and spirit.

Calvinist Trees Blocking the Christian Forest

Once in a while an argument is encountered or a speaker is engaged in a long monologue that you wish the presenter could have stepped back and taken a more sound approach with his argument. Instead we are left with a spurious design and empty, fallacious rhetoric. This is often the case with Calvinist apologetics and with a recent post by R.C. Sproul, the tradition continues.  More than a few Calvinists have recommended Sproul's seminal book Chosen By God as a representative tome of modern Calvinist thought. I read it quite some time ago and found it to be a continuation of the expected arguments I've encountered far too many times from Calvinists of all stripes. A straw man is constructed, an argument devised to tear it down and the ensuing victory party all proceed from the same tainted arguments over and over again. The same is true with the brief extract from "Chosen" that Sproul has posted on his website.

Sproul has built an argument using John 3:16 to oppose a position that is rarely made i.e. that non-Reformed (non-Calvinists) stake a position on this passage to argue that man has some innate ability to freely choose to come to the LORD. He states "... What does this famous verse teach about fallen man's ability to choose Christ? The answer, simply, is nothing. The argument used by non-Reformed people is that the text teaches that everybody in the world has it in their power to accept or reject Christ ...". Unfortunately for Sproul, he has dedicated considerable capital to dispelling this straw man without addressing the more appropriate argument that Arminians such as myself make with John 3:16. No classical or Reformed Arminian I know of argues for the Pelagian position of innate goodness and ability on the part of fallen man to do anything whatsoever with regard to a first step or a last or any step in between. Instead, this universal passage and the most often quoted verse in scripture is a clear denunciation of the spurious Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement. It tears down the idea that God reprobated a large percentage of mankind for his glory and showed some sense of partiality for an "elect" independent of foreknowing their faith. Even John Calvin in his commentaries regarding this chapter of John acknowledges the universal application of Christ's atonement without exception.

R.C. Sproul, instead of taking another victory lap around the ashes of your little bonfire from several years ago, perhaps you could address the true importance of the passage and attempt to address actual Arminian doctrine instead of the fabrications of your rather ill-informed polemic.

Would Calvin Have Burned Sproul Alive?

William Birch provided an interesting examination of the Neo-Reformed charges against Non-Calvinistic believers regarding the order of faith and regeneration on his website recently. He, with irenic grace seemed lacking in our opponents, points out the attitude and opinion of men such as R.C. Sproul who hold Arminians and others in low regard for adhering to the orthodox understanding of faith preceding the regeneration of believers unto salvation. From the beginnings of the Christian era to the present, faith has been the stated condition of salvation, the means through which the grace of God brings souls into a proper relationship with Him. It is taught in scripture. It has been believed by the church throughout the centuries and millennia. It defines the Christian evangelical call and commission of Christ. It is through faith that we have new life. There is no new life preceding faith or the belief in the person and work of Jesus Christ. For Sproul and others to state we are "barely saved" as Arminians because we adhere to orthodoxy is foolhardiness. It is also evidence of an inexcusable ignorance of the teachings of their own tradition's founders. I am astounded that Sproul and his likeminded fellows lack sufficient knowledge of John Calvin's teachings as to spend such energy chasing after imaginary enemies in the Body of Christ. In their denigration of non-Calvinists, they have failed to include their namesake who, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, taught specifically that faith precedes regeneration and defined regeneration as synonymous with initial repentance (Institututes, Book III, ch 3, ix). Was John Calvin on a road to Rome when he wrote "… In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration (spiritual regeneration) , the only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam"? Do Sproul and others consider Calvin and every preceding theologian of worthy note prior to have been "semi-Pelagian"? In the same passage of his Institutes, Calvin affirmed the orthodox teaching of faith preceding regeneration. The following passage is important to and in some measure directed at the musings of men such as Sproul who seem to not understand the tradition they claim as a mantle.

That repentance not only always follows faith, but is produced by it, ought to be without controversy. For since pardon and forgiveness are offered by the preaching of the Gospel, in order that the sinner, delivered from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of iniquity, may pass into the kingdom of God, it is certain that no man can embrace the grace of the Gospel without retaking himself from the errors of his former life into the right path, and making it his whole study to practice repentance. Those who think that repentance precedes faith instead of flowing from, or being produced by it, as the fruit by the tree, have never understood its nature, and are moved to adopt that view on very insufficient grounds. (Institutes, Book III, ch 3, i)

From the previous quotation regarding regeneration from the same source, it is fairly clear that Calvin would have considered Sproul and other Neo-Reformed to be in error. Now, how he might have regarded their charges of semi-Pelagianism and being back on the road to Rome can only be speculative. However, I ask the pertinent question. Would Geneva have burned Sproul and his fellow accusers alive at the stake with the same green wood that ignited Servetus? Granted, Sproul might consider Calvin to have been "barely saved" and thus speculatively avoided the stern hand of Geneva justice, it is clear he would have made himself an enemy of the founder and namesake of his own religious persuasion.

John Owen’s Polemical Lie

John Owen, a hyper-Calvinist of some repute, wrote a short book entitled A Display of Arminianism. It is in a word, a lie. I do not know if the popular Calvinist ever repented of his dastardly lies but if not, he died as a wretched liar. Some of our Neo-Reformed apologists are fond of pointing to Owen as an exemplar of Reformed thought. I believe they do so out of sheer ignorance. If not, they share in what Owen was.

 

Arminianism is God-Centered Theology

The Society of Evangelical Arminians has posted an article by Prof. Roger Olson of Baylor University entitled Arminianism is God-Centered Theology. Of course Arminians such as myself will heartedly agree with it's premise and I am convinced this article will receive widespread attention, at least among the apologists.

Roger Olson's Blog

William Birch presents Jesus as ... the moderator

William Birch has provided a brilliant satire on The Arminian site that is well worth bookmarking. It is not only outstanding satire, it is plain truth nailed to the wall.

JESUS MODERATES DEBATE BETWEEN CALVIN AND ARMINIUS

Why Doesn't He Believe??

Arminian Kevin Jackson provided an interesting post on the SEA site today with several questions and answers that are of interest in the never ending struggle between Calvinist and non-Calvinist ideologies. It is well worth reading. In particular, the first question is of personal interest having addressed this matter recently. Kevin posits why does one person believe and not another? Often asked by Calvinists as if this is a showstopper of all things non-Calvinist yet Arminians often struggle to answer the inquiry. I have tried several times and Kevin offers his answer as well … "This question assumes a deterministic framework. Each person is a unique being who has the God given capability to make his own choices ex nihilo. One person believes and not another because one chose to believe, and the other did not." From my perspective this begs the question further. Why does one choose to believe and another given the same Gospel chooses not to? I have tried to reply by turning the question back on the inquirer and asking why does he continue in sin knowing his LORD and Master disapprove? The reply is usually a dismissal of the question however it should be the same as Kevin's response, he chose to sin. Yet we are still left with some mystery to ponder and in all truthfulness, I do not have an answer. I do not know why I chose the LORD when He called and why my neighbor continues to reject Him. Boiling the dross and fat away from the Calvinist perspective, he must reply because God made him for the glory of hell but that does nothing to settle the matter. The Calvinist must deal with his own antinomy between his concept of divine determination and my neighbor's accountability for sin and rejection. For my own comfort, I find less conflict from my inability to explain why somebody would continue to reject God than the Calvinist must have with his contradictory mystery. I can remember well my own rejection of Christ and looking back have some understanding of why my neighbor continues to reject Him… understand yet still marvel at it.

Triabloke Cartoon Network

Mean, angry and unloving A.M Mallett wrote a while back on the Triabloke Cartoon Network ...

The quandary exists among both Calvinists and Arminians. For the Arminian, the tension is with explaining why one turns to the LORD and another resists. We do not know. However, with the Calvinist, the antinomy is irreconcilable. Divine determinism is excused from responsibility. From the Arminian perspective, the Calvinist conflict between divine determination and human accountability does far more damage to God's character and goodness than our lack of comprehension for why a man resists the grace of God and another does not resist.


The Triabloke cartoon character says to another Triabloke cartoon character ... "This here is an infamously bad argument against Calvinism. We better censor and delete it before anybody reads it."

Do You Believe God created Everybody and Everything?

Jay Van Till responded to a post providing Arminius' comments on the authorship of sin and asked this opening question. For myself, it is very straightforward. It is an unequivocal yes. My reply goes further. I not only believe that, I will take it further and state there is not anything, any action, any occurrence now, before or to come that has not been ordained of the LORD. Now, that does not lend my sympathies to the necessity of determinism. Instead, as with Picirilli, I make the distinction between certainty and necessity. I have come to believe that is one of the chief stumbling stones between Calvinists and Arminians… a little removed from the original question but as Jay stated originally, I'm not being sneaky, I am leading somewhere.

The Biblical Doctrine of Grace for Everybody Else

I have for years found the Calvinist use of the phrase "Doctrines of Grace" to be offensive to the Christian body. Perhaps it is because of the lack of any real set of doctrines derived out of scripture regarding grace that align with the caustic acronym TULIP. It could be that I just find Calvinist sectarians offensive when they start a sentence with the phrase and immediately launch into a diatribe against the greater body of Christ, especially when most Calvinist polemics reveal an astonishing lack of theological knowledge of nearly everything they oppose. William Birch recently noted in one of his articles
"Grace is by definition a special favor actively bestowed upon an undeserving individual. Thus when a Christian minister quotes Paul as saying, "For it is by grace you have been saved" Eph 2:5,8, he or she means that the one saved was saved not by merit but by grace, undeserved favor. This is how to use the word grace biblically. In this we do not go beyond its clear meaning, nor do we fall short of what the Bible teaches." Yet, if the Calvinist is to be believed (and I stridently argue he is terribly wrong) many unredeemed men have been granted an undeserved favor in being cast into hell, all for the imagined glory of God. If TULIP constitutes the doctrines of Grace, a limited atonement without provision for the whole world as argued for in 1 John 2:1-2 must be presented as an unmerited favor upon the lost and damned as well as the redeemed. What is graceful with this scenario and how does that square with the revealed character and goodness of God? Can we excuse such a callous disregard for true grace by dismissing our sensible objections as merely misguided excursions into the "mystery" of God?

As Arminians, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans and many other orthodox church groups present the scriptural teachings regarding God's grace, we marvel at how distant the determinists have removed themselves from simple truths. The following presents one of the scriptural teachings we preach and exposit, never coming close to the near blasphemous regard for God's character represented by elements of TULIP. It is the simplicity of grace through faith without dismissing faith as an irrelevant condiment to the central message. It is the biblical doctrine of grace for everybody else.

"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:4-10 AV)

An Atonement for All the World

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1John 2:1-2 AV)

That seems to be a strong statement in support of the universal extent of the work of the atonement at Calvary however our Calvinist friends are quick to dismiss the scope of the atonement by insisting the phrase whole world is exclusive to the elect of the whole world. I have never understood how they think themselves capable of projecting such a philosophy upon the passage. Is it reasonable to suggest the Apostle John had such a scheme in mind when he wrote this epistle? I believe it is a very hard stretch to make this passage fit the Calvinist paradigm especially when we consider how John used "world" elsewhere in his epistle.

"I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." (1John 2:12-17 AV)

The above passage, taken from the same letter makes a sharp contrast between the saints and the entirety of the world from which we came. It strikes me as incredulous that the Apostle could be referring to the unrevealed elect through the use of "whole world" when he made such a strong contrast shortly following that statement. We find this again latter in the same letter.

"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. [And] we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen." (1John 5:18-21 AV)

How could it be that the whole world could ever mean the unrevealed elect in our midst when the world, the whole world, that same whole world mentioned in 2:1-2 lies completely in wickedness. The contrast between those that lie in wickedness and the saints that have received an understanding through the coming of the LORD is stark and undeniable. The whole world spoken of by the Apostle can only represent that whole world each of the saints once was a part of and have now come out of. It commands an understanding of the universal provision of the atonement rather than the philosophical reaching of a limitation in order to buttress an aberrant view.

While I do not hold that a limited atonement as devised by Calvinists (married and one with the unconditional election of Dort) constitute an anathematized doctrine as the elders of Orange determined, it certainly sits as a rebutted, aberrant doctrine by the words of the Apostle and one teaching in particular that is justified in being completely rejected by the saints of God. ( Similar arguments have been made by others concerning these particular passages. I recently encountered Robert Picirilli making very much the same argument)

Semper Reformanda! My Arminian Fellows

Thinking of this phrase earlier, I wondered how many Google hits I could find with this sedate phrase. I came up with 66,900, with safe search on obviously to keep the Triabloke bloggers at bay. At least the first two or three pages were mostly hardcore Calvinist websites obviously pleased to mouth a phrase few of them have paused to consider. Always reforming is the catch phrase or more historically, Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda loosely translated as the church reformed, always reforming. I can understand Luther's purpose and his mindset that we should always have reform in mind when dealing with the doctrines of the church to guard against ingrained error. I have never understood the Calvinist entrenchment of their dogmatic instruction as anything to be held up as semper reformanda. If anything could be held to be consistent and accurate to the intent of the phrase, it would be Arminius and his challenge of what he demonstrated to be gross error and deviation from simple scriptural truths. Always examining scripture and reforming oneself from the poorly devised doctrines that call for review, the true Reformation minded soul should be open to examination, receptive to clearly expressed scriptural truths, averse to antinomic conclusions. If anything at all, the Arminian can proclaim Semper Reformanda and do so with clearer conviction than the Calvinist who never budges from long rebutted dogma. For that matter we might reclaim the phrase Doctrines of Grace and give it proper due.

Signs and Wonders … A Quandary for the Neo-Calvinist

"And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all [quarters], he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda. And there he found a certain man named Æneas, which had kept his bed eight years, and was sick of the palsy. And Peter said unto him, Æneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: arise, and make thy bed. And he arose immediately. And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, and turned to the Lord." (Ac 9:32-35 AV)

Let's marry that to this …

"Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." (John 4:48 AV)

How is it that people can come to believe and turn to the LORD through the witness of signs and wonders? I suppose it is much the same as knowing that the power of God unto salvation is found through the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Rom 1:16). Our Calvinist fellows would have us believe that salvation is through some caricature of predestinated election independent of any response on the part of men and women yet here we see men and women witnessing miracles and believing because of it. How do Calvinists explain themselves to the children of God?

(Thanks to Richard Coords for the thought on this subject)

An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. the TULIP of Calvinism

The Society of Evangelical Arminians provides this wonderful comparison of the facts of Christianity as most Christians understand them with the dogma derived from the machinations of Calvinism's Synod of Dordt. Dr. Brian Abasciano and Martin Glynn provide the comparison on the SEA website.

Sheep stealing …

God so loved a very few of His creation and knowing every man is totally corrupt He would unconditionally elect those few individuals to a certain salvation. Having already elected these few souls, He sent His own Son to die a death on the Cross at Calvary that would only be intended for those elect souls. Nobody else could ever benefit given God predestined the lost souls for the purpose of damnation. That atonement saves those elected to salvation and seals the condemnation of those predestined to damnation. This expressed grace of God cannot be resisted by those He elected nor can it be frustrated. For those whom God elected and Christ died for, they are dragged willingly into the Kingdom of God and persevere eternally. ... you sir might be one of those few that God loves.

Of course such a message cannot really be preached effectively because there is nothing of the LORD in it yet these thoughts comprise the Gospel for many Calvinists once they have been indoctrinated into their sect. Having been brought into the Kingdom via the Gospel preached by most in Christ, the new bought Christian soon falls prey to teachings that rub harshly against the grain of the very Gospel preached to them in the first place. I can't count the number of times I have heard or seen Calvinists claim to have been saved in an Arminian church setting but once they started to read their bibles they became Calvinists. Why is it that the LORD would see fit to bring souls into His Kingdom by the preaching and ministry of lovers of the LORD only to later through gnosis to reveal to them that the real truth lies down the road at the "other" church? I think it is merely the flesh of intellectualism that seduces souls away from their first love.

All for Some and Some for All or Some Such …

I was browsing through a few articles earlier on the SEA site and came across a recent article looking at a few questions and troublesome scriptural passages that some of our Reformed brethren seem to struggle with. The entire piece is certainly worth running through but one intriguing question caught my attention. How do the Reformed explain 1 Tim 2:4? My experience has been that the Calvinist will defer "all men to be saved" to mean all classes of men yet the suggestion of classes does not seem to be suggested at all in the full context of the passage. When we examine the full context of Paul's instruction to Timothy it is notable that all men or simply all is a common theme from verses 1 through 8. Examining this further we see an exhortation by Paul for the benefit of all men and he focuses even on a subset of men that certainly are not all elect as we know there are ruthless rulers and authoritarians in our day as in his. He follows this with the clear instruction that God desires to see all men saved. Is there any rhyme or reason why the all men of God's desire should be any less than the all men of Paul's supplication? Let's look at the passage from the KJV.

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." (1Ti 2:1-8 AV)

One common objection I encounter with the statement "Who will have all men to be saved" is the rejoinder "Why are all men not saved if God will have them all saved?" I have heard this from the Universalists as well even though I make no connection between Calvinists and Universalists for their own sakes. The reply to such a line of reasoning is found in the context of the whole passage. The phrase does not address what God is going to do but rather offers what God desires and in noting this we also can see the encompassing purpose of the exhortation, that being the vehicle of prayer and supplication. I think it is important to note in grasping this urgency of prayer and intercessions the last phrase of the passage, "without wrath and doubting". The Christian should never pray for the deliverance of souls in any measure of anger at the soul or with so much as a doubt his prayer could be useful. How can we doubt our Gospel message to the soul on the other end of our reach? Paul's intent was to preach, pray, exhort, and entreat to every soul never doubting they too could be reached for he stated God's very word as …

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth …"

 

 

 

A Simple Distinctive

With the many discussions I have had, some enlightening and others divisive, regarding the distinctive differences we have as Arminians with our Calvinist brethren, I have struggled for the simple statement. Books have been written and tempers raised in trying to craft an understanding of these differences. I have lingered over election and predestination as the defining differences however I am moved to consider something else for now… I like old books. There is something treasured in a lot of them and I am especially drawn to 19^th century writings, produced from a time when books were the medium of any significance. The 19^th century produced a rich heritage of Wesleyan writings and in browsing through a few of them earlier, I came across this passage. It is taken from M.L. Scudder's American Methodism first published in 1867. The Wesley Center for Applied Theology has been gracious in providing several holiness works for research and enlightenment. This is one of them and I think the distinctives offered are right on the money.

The one controlling doctrine that gives distinctiveness to Methodism is, that the work of salvation by Christ depends on the enlightening, renewing, and sanctifying in-workings of the Holy Spirit; and hence, that the individual is saved, and saved only, as he becomes the subject of this work of the Spirit. In connection with this, it teaches also, that the atonement of Christ hath provided that every man may receive this Spirit, and become the subject of its sanctification.

Romanism asserts that sin can only be destroyed by the fires of purgatory. Calvinism and Lutheranism teach that it remains in the believer till death. Methodism asserts that the grace of Christ can "sanctify wholly," "here and now."

These distinctive doctrines that we have ascribed to Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Wesleyanism are not only true in their application to the churches that take their tenets from the men who give them names, but they can each be directly traced to the personal experience of the great Reformers themselves. Calvin sought for "subjection to the will of God," and taught his followers to seek more for submission to, than for reception of, the grace of God. Luther's struggle was for forgiveness of sin; but, with his interpretation, it was more "a work done for him than done in him," and his followers hold rather to "justification pro forma than pro spiritu." Wesley sought and gained a higher state, -- a religious consciousness that the " blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin:" he taught his followers that they were to know an inward, as well as outward holiness. - American Methodism, M.L. Scudder, S. S. Scranton & Co., Hartford, Connecticut, 1867, p.31