Menu

The Perversion of the Sovereignty of God by Britt Williams

S
sermonindex

This is being posted not for argument but for thought. There have been many articles posted from the "strong" calvinist point I think it is only right to post other articles from the other side from time to time.

----

[b]The Perversion of the Sovereignty of God[/b]
[i]by Britt Williams[/i]

The term “sovereign” refers to one who is supreme, above all others, who possesses authority above all. It involves freedom from limitation by any external power or authority. Interestingly, the term “sovereign” is never used in the King James Bible. In fact, no Hebrew word that could be properly translated “sovereign” occurs in the Old Testament. However, the Greek word kyrios is translated into the English word “Lord” and is used throughout the New Testament while the Greek word pantokrator is translated as “Almighty” in several verses in the book of Revelation. Thus, the concept of God as “sovereign” is indeed communicated in the Scriptures. Hence, all genuine Christians agree that God is the Sovereign Ruler over the universe. He is supreme in authority. There are no authorities, whatever they may be, that are not delegated by Him and deferential to His supreme authority. Therefore, God, as Sovereign, is never forced into any action by any external power; He possesses ultimate authority over all things. A.W. Tozer says…

“The sovereignty of God is a fact well established in the Scriptures and declared aloud by the logic of truth. But admittedly it raises certain problems which have not to this time been satisfactorily solved. These are mainly two...”
-A.W. Tozer (The Knowledge Of The Holy, XXII, p. 109)

Mr. Tozer goes on to elaborate on these two theological and philosophical issues raised by the truth of God’s Sovereignty, namely: (1) the existence of evil, and (2) the free will of man.

Calvinistic theology has attempted to address these two issues with less than stellar results. As we discussed in the article, "Is God the Author of Sin?" we learned that the logical end of Calvinistic determinism inescapably makes God the cause of all things, even sin. And, no doubt, though many sincere Calvinist would decry such a conclusion, this is the irrefutable implication of their theology.

In the matter of man’s free will, Calvinists again do violence to the Scriptures and sound reason. At the very heart of Reformed theology is an erroneous interpretation and overstatement of God’s sovereignty. Calvinists view God’s sovereignty in such a way as to deny the possibility of man’s will opposing God’s will. They view God as not only possessing ultimate authority over all things, but likewise, that He is also the ultimate cause of all things. Augustine was one of the first theologians to formulate a doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God. This extra-Biblical concept is at the heart of the Calvinistic system. The Calvinistic concept of God’s sovereignty was not derived from the Scriptures, but from philosophical considerations. Then, accordingly, this presupposition was imposed on the interpretation of Scripture to conform to the basic tenets of the system.

One example of this presupposition playing a part in Calvinistic theology is found in Augustine’s treatment of 1 Timothy 2:4…

“When we hear and read in sacred Scripture that God, ‘willeth that all men should be saved,’ although we know well enough that not all men are saved, we are not on that account to underrate the fully omnipotent will of God. Rather, we must understand the Scripture, ’Who will have all men to be saved,’ as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation he doth not will, but that no one is saved unless He willeth it.”
-Augustine (Confessions and Enchiridion, Vol. VII of The Liberty of Christian Classics)

Here, Augustine obviously forces Scripture to conform to his doctrine. No contextual or linguistic consideration could render this verse as he interpreted it, yet he violently alters the meaning to protect his false presupposition of divine sovereignty.

John Calvin adopted and enlarged the teaching of Augustine, upholding the claim that no other will can resist God’s will. Like his predecessor, Calvin also took great liberties in interpreting God’s Word. Concerning the same passage, 1 Timothy 2:4, he commented…

“By this he assuredly means nothing more than that the way of salvation was not shut against any order of men…since it clearly appears that he is speaking not of individuals, but of order of men, let us have done with a longer discussion.”
-John Calvin, (Institutes of the Christian Religion)

Again, a brazen dishonest handling of the Word of God is necessary to arrive at such conclusions. No doubt, the presupposition of God’s absolute sovereignty plays into this false interpretation of God’s Word. Notice, although both Augustine and Calvin arrived at different conclusions regarding 1 Timothy 2:4, it was their skewed view of God’s sovereignty that fueled their misinterpretations. This erroneous concept of God robs men of libertarian free-will which ultimately makes God the cause of all things, including sin. Unfortunately, this perverted view of God’s sovereignty is at the foundation of the misguided theological system of Calvinism.

As mentioned earlier, God is indeed sovereign, meaning He is over all things and He, ultimately, is in control of all things. However, as a limitless God, He has chosen, in His sovereignty, to limit Himself by granting man free will. Thus, God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice. Moreover, the doctrine of man’s free will is not that man can choose a relationship with God, apart from God (Jn 6:44), but rather, that man has the ability to selectively resist God (Isa 63:10; Acts 7:51; Eph 4:30).

This view is verified not only by the Scriptures but by the early church as well. It is interesting to note that none of the early church fathers held to a view of God’s sovereignty that included divine predestination which denied the free-will of men. For example…

“Lest some suppose…that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain…if , all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritious nor the latter blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions of whatever kind they be. But, it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble.”
-Justin Martyr (The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p.177)

“We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit’s of each man’s actions. Now, if this is not so, but all things happen by fate, then neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it is predetermined that this man will be good, and this other man will be evil, neither is the first one meritorious nor the latter man to be blamed. And again, unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions.”
-Justin Martyr (c. 160, Vol. 1)

“I have proved in what has been said that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault. Rather, each man is what he will appear to be through his own fault.”
-Justin Martyr (c.160, Vol. 1, p. 269)

“The Stoics, not observing this, maintained that all things take place according to the necessity of fate. But since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. and this is the nature of all that is made, to be capable of vice and virtue. For neither would any of them be praiseworthy unless there were power to turn to both (virtue and vice).”
-Justin Martyr (The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p.354)

"If anyone is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice."
-Ignatius (disciple of the Apostle John, late 1st Century/ Early 2nd Century, The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 61)

“Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able to reject it again.”
-Tatian (The Anti-Nicene Fathers, 160, Vol. 2, pp. 69-70)

“This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For
there is no coercion with God, but a good will (toward us) is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves…”
-Irenaeus (c. 180, Against Heresies 37; God’s Strategy In Human History, p. 246)

“Choice depends on the man as being free. But the gift depended on God as the Lord. And He gives to those who are willing, are exceedingly earnest, and who ask. In this manner, their salvation can become their own. For God does not compel.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, Vol. 2, p. 593)

“We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, Vol. 2, p. 217)

“To obey or not is in our own power, provided we do not have the excuse of ignorance.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, Vol. 2, p. 353)

“Each one of us who sins with his own free will, chooses punishment. So the blame lies with him who chooses. God is without blame.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c.195, Vol. 2, p. 226)

“Neither promises nor apprehensions, rewards, no punishments are just if the soul has not the power of choosing and abstaining; if evil is involuntary.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, Vol. 2, p.319)

“I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience of resistance.”
-Tertullian (c. 207, Vol. 3, pp. 300-301)

“No reward can be justly bestowed, no punishment can be justly inflicted, upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice.”
-Tertullian (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 61, published by Truth in Heart)

“The soul does not incline to either part out of necessity, for then neither vice nor virtue could be ascribed to it; nor would its choice of virtue deserve reward; nor its declination to vice punishment.” Again, “How could God require that of man which he [man] had not power to offer Him?”
-Origen (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 62, published by Truth in Heart)

“God is good and wise. He does what is best. Therefore, there is no fixed destiny.”
-Methodius (c. 190, Vol. 6, p.343)

“Now those [pagans] who decide that man is not possessed of free will, and affirm that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate…are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause or author of human evils.”
-Methodius (c. 190, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins 16; God’s Strategy In Human History, p. 252)

Admittedly, God’s sovereignty is difficult for the finite mind to grasp. In closing, allow me to share a simple illustration, from A.W. Tozer’s excellent book, “The Knowledge Of The Holy”, that may help us understand the Biblical view of this doctrine.

“An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it. This is at least a faint picture of Sovereignty. On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port. Both freedom and Sovereignty are present here and they do not contradict each other.”
-A.W. Tozer (The Knowledge Of The Holy, XXII, p. 111)

J
jpspeer

Great article! Thanks for posting!

K
KingJimmy

Good stuff.

T
TaylorOtwell

I still fail to understand why it is the case that those who do not embrace Calvinistic teaching chide those who do embrace Calvinistic theology as being followers of men and not Jesus, yet they themselves usually resort to a long list of quotes from church fathers instead of seriously exegeting the Biblical text.

This article did nothing to seriously offer an exegesis of the pertinent Biblical texts. We must all grapple with the Scripture. Quoting Justin Martyr and Clement isn't serious Bible exposition.

If we want to discuss this issue, why not let some serious exegetical discussion take place between mature members of the board? Everyone likes a monologue, but not everyone wants a dialogue.

A
Axe1338

Well said Taylor!

W
whyme

Moderator,

I can't understand the thought that this article that explictly characterizes the doctrines of grace as a perversion of, a violence to and a brazenly dishonest mishandling of Scripture would not cause an argument. The conclusions towards those who hold or present the apparently offending viewpoint are insulting and a very ad hominem attack that the moderators have moderated against for some time, especially on this subject matter. I have missed honest debate on the Scriptural support for the two sides of sovereignty but understood the need to tone down the rhetoric to avoid unedifying controversy. How does this help?

J
jpspeer

I believe it was the purpose of this article to show the error of those who claim that calvinistic type theology was prevalent in the early church, not to prove the merit of the free will of man.

Most Calvinists I've talked to embrace calvinism because they claim that God's attribute of sovereignty suffers if man has a choice. I reject Calvinism because if man had no choice, then all of God's other attributes would suffer.

S
sermonindex

Whyme. I agree. Of all people, the moderators should understand the discord these hot button issues present. To say 'here's a viewpoint but not for argument' on a forum like this, knowing the history of where this eventually leads, is surprisingly thoughtless. Can threads be started where an article is posted but not replied to?? If so then present both sides, as you say has been done, and disable the response capabilities. But to throw it out and say it's not for argument is kind of naive given the forum's history.... especially given prior admonishments from the moderators themselves to not post such things that could lead to such discord (ie... calvanism/armenianism)

On the other hand, if we're comfortable with our theology and our walk with the Lord then we should be able to read such things.... understand the rampant historical quarreling over the subject, then either entertain as food for thought or dismiss it altogether without having to point fingers or plead our case... yet again... with counter-argument. I wonder how many souls each theology has saved.... none... only Christ saves. And all this DESPITE differing viewpoints on this issue. The nerve of such a ONE who would continue to populate heaven in the midst of such a serious and important debate. Perhaps we should ask that He put His work on hold until each side comes to a mutual conclusion? I wonder how long God would have to wait in such a scenario.

S
sermonindex

Greg,

I think you probably should have taken your own advice before posting this article:

The site moderators ask you before you post that you consider praying and ask the Lord if you have the right spirit to serve others in the body of Christ before posting and pressing the submit button. Please also look at these scriptures: Matthew 12:36, James 1:26, Colossians 4:6.

N
narrowpath

We recently had a post featuring a sermon by Keith Daniel entitled the tightrope walker. I find it very balanced defending the scriptures rather then a theologically tainted school. In his exposition he shows a lot of grace towards both camps but does not compromise and inch on the integrity of scripture or tries to find a foul compromise. Believing a truth is good, but a man proving the truth he believes in his life with a remarkable testimony and saved soul is never at the mercy of doctors of religion.

He does not axe Calvin and Spurgeon and Luther, nor does he deify Wesley and Moody.


https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=31754&forum=35

Matthew 11:19 (English Standard Version)

19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."

T
tjservant

I still fail to understand why it is the case that those who do not embrace Calvinistic teaching chide those who do embrace Calvinistic theology as being followers of men and not Jesus, yet they themselves usually resort to a long list of quotes from church fathers instead seriously exegeting the Biblical text.

Amen.

I consider the articles I post to be from a strong Biblical point. Others often label them as being from a particular theology. I find all my support from the Bible.

L
Lysa

ccrider
To say 'here's a viewpoint but not for argument' on a forum like this, knowing the history of where this eventually leads, is surprisingly thoughtless.

Brother,

Please tell me that you did NOT just call Greg thoughtless?

Brother, if I may offer my hopefully humble take on Greg's statement.

First and foremost Greg did not say no one could NOT debate!!

My understanding is that as the owner of a Christian website, people, whether consciously or unconsiously, look to Greg to see what he believes (or better said: what he [b]thinks[/b] is ok to believe); and I believe in order to avoid anyone surmising that he might be cramming this down a Calvinist's throat, he simply stated why he posted it.

Pure and simple, but look what all the calvinists read into it!! If that doesn't say something gigantic, I don't know what does. It takes one to know one because I used to be the first one to get skruffy with pre and post trib "discussions"!!!

Brothers united over calvinism, I know the Lord loves you but please consider your ways.

God bless you all!

(edited for clarity)

J
JoanM

I am glad for your post on this Greg. It is timely in my life.

I have never posted on a thread such as this. I am only posting today because a man and wife in my Sunday school class, open-hearted disciples of Jesus [ who both believe and continue in His word] asked a question that ran to the heart of this. This coming Sunday we will discuss this.

I want to say that I am praying for that discussion time. Why? Because I have seen what has often occurred here in writing [not in what God may have done in the hearts of the writers and readers after-ward]. I witnessed members of my Sunday school class “jump down the throats” of these dear ones, who are not immature, to persuade them of a particular view. They alone responded that they would search the Word of God on this subject.

Quoting other students of the Bible, following their logic, human reasoning, whatever, just does not cut it for me. It goes so quickly to “men with arguments” as Leonard Ravenhill might say, and I can hardly tell the difference between Calvin, Brett Williams, a host of others including many who have posted on these threads and the thousands of Jewish commentators on the Torah.

What I would like to hear is how a”Calvinist” [I can hardly write that] understands the Scripture by which an “Armenian” [again hard to write] was persuaded to believe. And vise versa. Maybe that would be fruitful: a rule regarding who can give their understanding on which scripture when it comes to this “debate.”

[u]From Gareth Evans' web-site I happened to see today[/u]: Speaking of “ … the great move of God in the mid C18th which led to Methodism …” “He [Harris] began to go around local homes preaching until the crowds forced him to open air preaching. He was only a layman and was greatly opposed by the clergy, but he had great courage to continue though often beaten and persecuted. George Whitfield heard of him and came to visit him in Talgarth Church Cardiff. They became good friends and it was as a result of this that George Whitfield himself began to preach in the open air, later followed, at his suggestion, by John Wesley. Wesley also became a good friend of Harris' even though they held differing views on the sovereignty of God. Indeed, when Wesley and Whitfield were estranged because of their differing doctrines of free grace and the sovereignty of God, [u]it was Harris who was a major instrument in their reconciliation[/u].


[b]Now that bit of history I would like to know[/b]. It sounds like it might touch on the subject of this thread.

How often do we perceive truth in the scripture and apply it poorly, even missing the heart of it (Luke 13)?

G
Giggles

A quote and an illustration from history.

Paul Washer:

"My dear friends, and I am going to say this bluntly, I know that there are Calvinists here and I know that there are Arminians here and I know that there are all sorts of strange animals in between, but I want you to know this. Although I am leaning more toward—I guess I call myself a five point Spurgeonist—I want you to know this. Calvinism is not the issue. No, I am going to get in a lot of trouble when this goes on the internet. Calvinism is not the issue. I’ll tell you what the issue is. Regeneration. And that is why I can have fellowship with Wesley and Ravenhill and Tozer and all the rest because regardless of where they stood on the other issues they believed that salvation could not be manipulated by the preacher, that it was a magnificent work of the power of almighty God. And with them, therefore, I stand, that I was a work of God." -From 10 Indictments

And the illustration (and brief set-up):

Today [9-24-2009], 250 years ago a great pastor was born, Charles Simeon. He was called to Trinity Church, Cambridge in May of 1782. And he endured fruitfully there through much fire for 54 years until his death November 13, 1836.

Simeon never married. He "had deliberately and resolutely chosen the…celibacy of a Fellowship that he might…better work for God at Cambridge" (Moule, Charles Simeon, 111).

His greatest influence was probably through sustained biblical preaching for 54 years. This was the central labor of his life. In 1833, he placed into the hands of King William IV the completed 21 volumes of his collected sermons.

He tried to be conciliatory in doctrinal disputes. Here is an example of how he conversed with the elderly John Wesley:

Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

-Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

-Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

-No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

-No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

-Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

-Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree. (Moule, 79ff.)

[url=http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/2016_a_250yrold_model_how_calvinist_simeon_related_to_wesley/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DGBlog+%28DG+Blog%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail]Source[/url]


(As a nod to historical accuracy, George Whitefield and John Wesley, however persuaded by the peacemaker Harris, were in part forced to take their messages to the fields, streets, and public squares as both were formally banned from preaching in the formal, orthodox churches of the day.)

*EDIT*

(Also in these matters, it is important to study a man's life fully to know the broad spectrum of his theology. Many a man of God has been, like scripture, quoted out of context in order to use his name as weight in a debate.)

T
TruthNLove

Did Abraham choose God or did God choose Abraham? Or was it both? How about Israel? Did God determine what gifts he would give? Did he determine what country you would be born in, who your parents would be? Or did you.

It's interesting how we can accept and understand the the Sovereignity of God on some issues and not Salvation.

T
TaylorOtwell

Friends,

I understand the sentiment of these stories and quotes. But the issue remains: what does God say? What do the Scriptures teach? Nothing else matters. The Holy Spirit mentions the concept of election quite frequently through the Apostles, which means that the Lord wants us to know what that means. It is presumptuous to ignore the issue or to skirt around it without serious study. The Lord desires his people to be greatly comforted by his abounding grace.

Serious, thorough Bible exposition will prove fruitful if it is conducted by mature, godly believers.

With care in Christ...

W
wayneman

Wesley began the Methodist movement at a time when the protestant pulpit was dominated by a version of Calvinism so extreme that Calvin himelf might have found it odd. It was commonly taught, for example, that you could not do anything to be reconciled with God or even have assurance of salvation (you will find out on Judgment Day if you are one of the Elect); that it is blasphemous to send missionaries to the heathen because that would presume to improve on the Providence of God; that most stillborn babies went to hell, but a few are saved by Election. And Calvinism had even become a sociological philosophy; the Elect were not only chosen for eternal salvation, but elected to live a life of idol luxury while the damned were foreordained to draw water, hew wood and serve as chamber maids for the Elect. The upper class was the Elect; the poor were the children of wrath, and poverty was part of the punishment for their sins. This may sound like hyperbole, but it is not. This is what churchmen like Augustus Toplady actually taught.

It is not surprising that Arminianism made a comeback in those days. In America, Charles Finney's whole ministry was explaining to churches that their theology was dead wrong and the Lord required obedience on their part. But today one of the great errors of the evangelical pulpit is hyper-Arminianism, which puts so much emphasis on human performance that it effectively reduces God to an automation who is compelled by self-imposed laws to always respond in certain ways to human stimuli. Man is a free moral agent, but God is not.

That is what usually happens when Christians war over doctrine: they end up polarizing into two opposing errors.

T
TaylorOtwell

Wayneman,

Can you post or PM me the Toplady writings you refer to?

With care in Christ...

G
Giggles

Wesley began the Methodist movement at a time when the protestant pulpit was dominated by a version of Calvinism so extreme that Calvin himelf might have found it odd.

I'm sure he would have as the Bible in no way teaches the things you mentioned as being taught, and Calvin only taught what he believed the Bible actually teaches.

I know that Wesley and Whitefield also had to combat infant baptism, which was the rite guaranteeing salvation. They both preached regeneration by the sovereign work of God as necessary to salvation.

L
Lysa

TaylorOtwell wrote:
I understand the sentiment of these stories and quotes. what does God say? What do the Scriptures teach? Nothing else matters.

Nothing else matters especially to people who think they are right in those matters!!!

I think that God has put many rest stops within His word. What do I mean by that? Do you believe that individuals can go all the way with God? I do!! I know that I haven't gone all the way with Him yet but I have hope that one day praise God!!! I believe that We can go all the way with God BUT ONLY if we choose to let go of our pride and arrogance. NOTHING has torn the church apart MORE than pride and arrogance of our own opinions on doctrine.

There are many rest stops along the highway of holiness. One rest stop is the prosperity doctrine, another is Calvinism and yet another rest stop is Arminianism. We pick and choose these like we pick and choose which resturant or rest stop might have the cleanest bathroom.

You and I DO NOT understand the importance of getting rid of "OUR" opinion on matters of doctrine; oh yes, that's right, the opinion you value so highly of yourself. If each of us are honest, we will admit that we value our beliefs in God more than we actually value God.

But then again... this is just my opinion!! (wink wink) Take it or leave it!

God bless us all, I pray we "[b]receive[/b] the [b]love[/b] of the Truth!"

J
JoanM

Thank you Giggles for your Simian-Wesley reported conversation. By checking your source (the link you gave), I found a useful conversation there after the article. One comment included:[i]Surely we can agree that our salvation is the working of God through Christ by the Spirit through faith from first to last, but we surely differ on whom that offer is given to, and various aspects of the heart of the God who gives it.[/i]

I noticed recently in John 8: 30-31, that Jews that believed on Jesus when He spoke specific words, quickly picked up stones to kill Him (John 8:59). I cannot tell if it was just His prophecy that led to their believing or also words He spoke prior to that. Setting aside[u] many[/u] deep truths in this chapter, their immediate sticking-point was over the issue of their freedom (John 8: 32-33). My [u]only[/u] point here being that it is easier for believers, perhaps even disciples, to agree about who Jesus/God is than it is to agree about who man is [even for those as mature as the men mentioned in this thread].

This may be just an interesting parallel from before He was lifted up. I truly hope that God will use all this in my conversation in Sunday school with the two precious disciples I spoke of. Have I mentioned how little I care for what is called “debate.”

R
roaringlamb

It is interesting to me that the word "sovereignty" absolutely implies freedom without any constraints, or autonomy.

But it seems that this gets overlooked when we come to our God?

What I mean is that this is a COMPLETELY black and white issue: either God is sovereign(meaning no one and nothing can overthrow His plans or work) or He is not.

Just simply based on the meaning of the word "sovereignty" we can see that [i]if[/i] there is anything that hinders God, He is not sovereign.

I really don't care to debate about this, and I find it personally appalling that anyone can for a minute doubt the sovereignty of God in their salvation or the salvation of others. I don't at all mean that as if I am saying, "I am right and you are wrong!" but instead, "this is GOD we are talking about here!"

Please, if God is not sovereign absolutely then He would be a fool and a liar to say that He makes ALL things work together for good for those who love Him!

I will now go back into my cave ;-)

S
savannah


Wayneman, retract your lie about one of the members of the family of God. A member of Christ's body, even His bride.

"...the Elect were not only chosen for eternal salvation, but elected to live a life of idol luxury while the damned were foreordained to draw water, hew wood and serve as chamber maids for the Elect. The upper class was the Elect; the poor were the children of wrath, and poverty was part of the punishment for their sins. This may sound like hyperbole, but it is not. This is what churchmen like Augustus Toplady actually taught."

May we all hear brother Augustus speak for himself now;

"Certainly, election is the act, not of man, but of God: founded, merely, upon the sovereign and gracious pleasure of His own will. It is "not of works lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:9); but solely of Him, Who has said, "I will be merciful to whom I will be merciful, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Romans 9:15). God merits of us, not we of Him: and it was His free-will, not ours, which drew the impassable line between the elect and the pretermitted...

Say not; "Upon this plan, sanctification is kicked out of doors, and good works are turned adrift." Nothing can be more palpable and flagrantly untrue. Newness of heart and of life is so essential to, and constitutes so vast a part of, the evangelical scheme of salvation, that were it possible for holiness and its moral fruits to be really struck out of the account, the chain would, at once, dissolve, and the whole fabric become an house of sand.

With regard to sanctification and obedience, truly so called; it can only flow, and cannot but flow, from a new heart: which new heart is of God's own making, and of God's own giving:

I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh [a soft, repenting, believing heart] and I will cause ye to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep My judgments and do them (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Now, God accomplishes this promise, by the effectual working of His blessed Spirit: by the mystic fire of Whose agency having melted our hearts into penitential faith, He then applies to them the seal of His own holiness; from which time, we begin to bear the image and superscription of God upon our tempers, words, and actions.

This is our "licentious" doctrine: namely, a doctrine which (under the influence of the Holy Ghost) conforms the soul, more and more, to God: carefully referring, at the same time, all the praise of this active and passive conformity, to God Himself, Whose gift it is; singing, with the saints of old, "Thou, Lord, hast wrought all our [good] works in us" (Isaiah 26:12); and for all the works so wrought, for the will to please Thee, for the endeavour to please Thee, for the ability to please Thee, and for every act whereby we do please Thee- "Not unto us, 0 Lord, not unto us, but to Thy Name, give glory."

And indeed, was not this the truth of the case, i.e. if conversion and sanctification and good works were not God's gifts and of His operation; men would have, not only somewhat, but much, even, very much, to boast offer they would be their own converters, sanctifiers, and saviours. Directly contrary to the plain letter of Scripture, which asks; "Who maketh thee to differ from others, and what hast thou which thou didst not receive?" (I Corinthians 4:7)- i.e. from above. Nor less contrary to the scriptural direction; "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord" (I Corinthians 1:31).

But, for the present, leaving Pharisees and legalists to the hands of Him Who alone is able, and has a right, to save or to destroy; let me address myself to the true believer in Christ. You were called, it may be, ten or twenty years ago, or longer, to the knowledge of God; and you still are found, dwelling under the droppings of the sanctuary, and walking in Him your Lord; sometimes faint, yet always wishing to pursue; tossed, but not lost, occasionally cast down, but not destroyed. How comes all this? How is it, that many flaming professors, who blazed out, for a while, like luminaries of the first lustre, are quenched, extinguished, vanished; while your smoking flax, and feeble spark of grace, continue to survive, and sometimes afford both light and heat? While more than a few, who, perhaps, once seemed to be rooted as rocks, and stable as pillars in the house of God, are become as water that runneth apace; Why are you standing, though in yourself, as weak, if not weaker than they9 A child of God can soon answer this question. And he will answer it thus: "Having obtained help of God, I continue to this day" (Acts 26:22). Not by my own might and power, but by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts (see Zechariah 4:6).

And He, that kept you until this day, will keep you all your days. His Spirit which He freely gives to His people, is a well of water, springing up, not for a year, not for a lifetime, only; but "into everlasting life" (John 4:14). God's faithfulness to you is the source of your faithfulness to Him. Christ prays for you: and therefore He keeps you watching unto prayer. He preserves you from falling; or, when fallen, He restores your soul, and leads you forth again in the path of righteousness, for His Name's sake. He had decreed, and covenanted, and promised, and sworn, to give you a crown of life; and, in order to that, He has no less solemnly engaged and irrevocably bound Himself, to make you faithful unto death.

"Well, then," says an Arminian, "if these things are so, I am safe at all events. I may fold up my arms, and even lay me down to sleep. Or, if I choose to rise and be active, I may live just as I list." Satan was the coiner of this reasoning: and he offered it, as current and sterling, to the Messiah, but Christ rejected it as false money. "If Thou be the Son of God," said the enemy; "if Thou be indeed that Messiah Whom God upholds, and His elect, in Whom His soul delighteth; cast Thyself headlong; it is impossible Thou shouldest perish, do what Thou wilt: no fall can hurt Thee; and Thy Father has absolutely promised that His angels shall keep Thee in all Thy ways; jump, therefore, boldly, from the battlements, and fear no evil."

The devil's argumentation was equally insolent, and absurd, in every point of view. He reasoned, not like a serpent in his wits, but like a serpent whose head was bruised (see Genesis 3:15), and who had no more of understanding than of modesty. Christ silenced this battery of straw, with a single sentence: "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Matthew 4:7). So said the Messiah. And so say we. And this is answer enough, to a cavil, whose palpable irrationality would cut its own throat, without the help of any answer at all."

Verily there has been/is a 'per-version of the Sovereignty of God'. This very article and this very author of the same is proof enough that such is true even today 2010.

The Genesis of such may be found in Cain, and his progeny are still among us.

"And He said, "He that has ears to hear, let him hear!"
But when He was by himself, those around Him together with the twelve asked Him about the parable. And He said to them, "Unto you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come to be spoken in parables,so that 'Seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them.'" (Mark 4:9-12)

W
wayneman

I should have inserted a paragraph break to clarify that Toplady ascribed to elitist Calvinist social policy, and not necessarily "all of the above."

Better yet, I should go back and edit out Toplady's name and pretend I don't know what you're talking about.

Even better yet, I should have my head examined for jumping into a Calvinism versus Arminianism debate when I don't give a flip about either.

H
HeartSong

Red blood cells and white blood cells are, in essence, completely different. While both are necessary for the body's proper functioning, they each have singular roles. Red blood cells carry oxygen, while white cells do not, for example. Red blood cells in humans do not have nuclei, while white cells do.

Red blood cells, also called erythrocytes, are responsible for the characteristic color of our blood. They are responsible for picking up carbon dioxide from our blood and for transporting oxygen. The essential component of red blood cells is hemoglobin, which can hold oxygen so the cells can then transport around the body. This process is what gives the body energy, which explains why people who suffer from anemia — low count red blood cells — often feel tired and sleepy. A high count of red blood cells is rare, but it can happen. Causes include kidney disease, dehydration, anabolic steroid use, and pulmonary fibrosis. People suffering from a high count of red blood cells usually have impaired circulation, and are at a high risk for heart disease.

White blood cells or leukocytes, on the other hand, are primarily responsible for fighting foreign organisms that enter the body. This includes everything from bacterial and parasitic infections to allergic response. T-cells, a form of white blood cells, are the ones that stop functioning properly in the presence of an HIV infection. An overproduction of white blood cells can lead to leukemia. On the other hand, certain medications, such as Clozapine®, used in psychiatry, can reduce the number of white cells significantly.

There are approximately 5 million red blood cells in every cubic millimeter of blood; there are only 3,000 - 7,000 white blood cells in the same amount of blood. Red blood cells have an average lifespan of 120 days, while white cells live a maximum of four days.

Red blood cells have a circular shape that resembles a shallow bowl, but they can change shape without breaking to squeeze through smaller spaces if necessary. White blood cells have different shapes, depending on their function. While they can multiply easily, they don't change shape.


[url=http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-red-and-white-blood-cells.htm]Source[/url]

L
Lysa

Red blood cells and white blood cells are, in essence, completely different. While both are necessary for the body's proper functioning, they each have singular roles.

Yeah, and I bet they don't try to kill each other!

I checked and when they do attack is when there is disease in the body. Hmmm.

PS: I love your analogy!

S
sermonindex

"Please tell me that you did NOT just call Greg thoughtless?" Lysa

Hi Lysa. My implication for the word was 'without careful consideration and thought'. I may have used the wrong word there but my point was if the moderators are going to admonish others for posting issues that would cause discord, why would they themselves do it? There has been several admonishments and thread closures because of the Calvanist/Armenian debates and we were told NOT to post such things but refer to the link that posts the past debates for review. So why the need? I don't get the inconsistency in what is said versus what is done. Greg then said it was not for 'arguments' sake... debate/argument .. we can split hairs there. Again, that may have been his intention but that's not been the historical reality of these types of threads... otherwise they wouldn't have to refer people who start such threads to a link for historical review, and this being done in an attempt not to keep rehashing the same old debates over and over... just like this one. He may have stated why he put the thread in but given the thread closures in the past and the link for review I wondered why it was necessary.

I'm NOT a Calvanist (not sure if your implication was that I was one, I've never given that impression), never have been, and I am not united with any of this... nor am I 'Armenian'. I simply read the Bible and glean what I glean in the revelation God gives me. I don't attempt to presume to know 'truth' in this area and take seriously the historical discord it has produced. I think quarreling over these things is useless.... if it were profitable then the historical review would have the peace of Christ in it with some kind of amicable conclusion. This is why I posted the last part of my post.

"Pure and simple, but look what all the calvinists read into it!! If that doesn't say something gigantic, I don't know what does. It takes one to know one because I used to be the first one to get skruffy with pre and post trib "discussions"!!!" Lysa

I couldn't agree more Lysa, see the last part of my post.

Greg, please don't take offense at my 'thoughtless' use of language. I think that word actually describes my use of it better:)


T
TaylorOtwell

Lysa,

Again, I appreciate your sentiment regarding "rest stops". However, if you find the historical doctrines of Calvinistic thinking to be false, then they should be able to be shown false by Bible exposition and exegesis.

Our God is not the vague, confusing god of the pagans. His Word is clear, and can be understood. The Apostles wrote much regarding election, and it is our responsibility to know what the Spirit was speaking through them. This is done through studying the issue closely and carefully. It is no sign of spirituality to ignore it or to gloss over it. In fact, it would be a disrespect to our Lord.

The Scriptures state that the Lord is going to [b]cause[/b] us to walk in His statutes (Ezek. 36:26-27). That's a powerful God. He is breaking down the strongholds of our stony hearts and giving us new desires. Christ has sheep He came to save, and He calls them sheep before they even believe (see John 10), meaning He has a people to save and they [b]will[/b] be saved. Christ [b]will[/b] receive the reward of his sufferings. The teachings of man's complete inability to choose God without divine regeneration and of God's free and sovereign grace are woven throughout the Scriptures. God renews our wills. Every decision is free, however, because of our depravity, we will never freely choose God unless He enables us (see John 6). Once he renews us, we freely choose Him with open arms. Oh, the glorious grace of God! If these understandings of Scriptures are wrong, then let it be proved by sound Bible exposition.

With care in Christ...

S
sermonindex

"Our God is not the vague, confusing god of the pagans. His Word is clear, and can be understood." Taylor


Hi Taylor. So are you saying that you understand all the mysteries of the Bible?? The Apostles and prophets also wrote much about the end times but do you understand that perfectly?? Do you know exactly who the Nicolaitans are in Revelation?? Do you know perfectly the book of Daniel? Do you understand all the symbolism given in the book of revelation and what that means for mankind perfectly?? Without being confounded or even in curious wonderment?? If you say yes then you qualify for your own website to give sound Bible exposition on all of it... which would greatly help all those who fail to use scripture as the basis for their theology. On the other hand if you do not understand perfectly (as in clarity.. without any vagueness in the original distibution or in careful interpretation) these things, even in careful exposition and exegesis, then do you feel that it is a Bible of a 'vague confusing god' of the pagans??

Perhaps the Bible CAN be understood clearly but that doesn't mean that it is.

T
TaylorOtwell

ccrider,

I didn't claim to. But, the point remains, the book of Daniel [b]can[/b] be understood if I devote the time to study it, with the help of the Spirit of God.

In the same way, election can be understood. But, to gloss over it or give superficial reasons to ignore it is ungodly.

With care in Christ...

S
sermonindex

"In the same way, election can be understood. But, to gloss over it or give superficial reasons to ignore it is ungodly." Taylor

What you call 'superficial' and glossing over is subjective, especially since you have given your view in the same fashion as the original author. It is equal in depth and scripture reference. You act like he had no scripture. You also imply that he didn't carefully consider to the measure you have and therefore is ungodly in this. These are bold statements Taylor. How do you know his reasonings are superficial? How do you know he doesn't claim to have been as careful as you or doesn't have more theological observances/writings on this issue besides what has been presented?? He gave five scriptures.... you gave two. The only reason I say this is because you promote scripture as the basis, which is fine, but you gave a couple of scriptures and commentary and that's it. Yet you chide the original author for doing the exact same thing. May I suggest that what you have presented is not as compelling as you think it to be? Below is a sample of what was written... scripture and commentary. How are you different in what you have presented? Also, the author did not post this himself... Greg did. So to chide the author here as superficial, glossing over, and ungodly is a very big leap of accusation.


"As mentioned earlier, God is indeed sovereign, meaning He is over all things and He, ultimately, is in control of all things. However, as a limitless God, He has chosen, in His sovereignty, to limit Himself by granting man free will. Thus, God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice. Moreover, the doctrine of man’s free will is not that man can choose a relationship with God, apart from God (Jn 6:44), but rather, that man has the ability to selectively resist God (Isa 63:10; Acts 7:51; Eph 4:30)."

T
TaylorOtwell

ccrider,

Because I wasn't attempting to offer a detailed exposition of Calvinistic teaching. If you want to go over that, PM me and we can work through the passages together in depth. It was my understanding of SI that the moderators didn't want to broach this topic in detail.

The article was not a serious Bible study. If that was not the author's intention, fine, it wasn't even his purpose. Quoting church fathers to prove a position isn't serious Bible study. I simply wanted to point that out because it is the "Arminians" who accuse the "Calvinists" of "following men", yet they themselves produce this long list of church father quotes. I could have probably quoted all of those same church fathers to defend Baptismal Regeneration. I'm just trying to encourage everyone to grapple with what the Scripture says, not Clement and Justin Martyr.

I would be glad to go through any Scripture passage in detail if you would like. The Lord will bless mature discussion of His Word, and I know that is what we both desire.

With care in Christ...

S
sermonindex

But yet again it has been broached in detail. Yes PM would be fine.

M
makrothumia

Dear Saints,

An assumption is being put forth that I would offer a word of caution towards. That assumption is that an exegetical study of certain passages would clarify or certify a certain postition over or against another.
While this may be true of some biblical doctrines, it is certainly not of all. I read the New Testament daily paying close attention to the laws of grammitcal syntax. This includes a careful analysis of both nouns and their case and verbs and their tense, voice, and mood.
I do not believe that I am alone in saying that such an analysis will not resolve all questions to everyone's satisfaction on this subject. To assert that such an exegetical exercise could do so, is an assumption that the history of biblical study itself has disproved.
Many men on both sides of this subject were very capable of extracting and analyzing the grammatical details of koine Greek. Without doubt such exegetical studies can eliminate many misconceptions, but it has not thus far, and will not likely resolve the matter once and for all.

makrothumia

S
sermonindex

Thanks Greg for posting this. I especially liked Tozer's thoughts on the subject.


“An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it. This is at least a faint picture of Sovereignty. On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port. Both freedom and Sovereignty are present here and they do not contradict each other.”
-A.W. Tozer (The Knowledge Of The Holy, XXII, p. 111)

I'm always amazed at the fire this churns up, though, here on SI. People get real touchy it seems, about this issue of free will, grace and Sovereignty. This puzzles me somewhat, and to me anyway, seems to indicate a faith entrenched in doctrine or dogma, more than in the Lord Himself. I believe that Tozer is right for sure. They do not contradict each other. Only the carnal and limited minds of men do that. [ me included certainly.]

T
TaylorOtwell

makrothumia,

Good point, brother.

With care in Christ...

W
whyme

Perhaps a balanced presentation of the issues involved will help accentuate the concern for the unbalanced article that was posted. Mr. Boettner, by the way, wrote a definitive work on predestination.

THE REFORMED FAITH
by Loraine Boettner

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

marked up by Lance George Marshall
Greek and Hebrew fonts used in this document can be downloaded at BibleWorks


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sections:
The Sovereignty of God
Man's Totally Helpless Condition
Christ's Atonement
The Foreknowledge of God
The Universalistic Passages
The Two Systems Contrasted

The "Five Points" of Arminianism
The "Five Points" of Calvinism
The Sovereignty of God
The purpose of this article is to set forth, in plain language and in terms easily understood, the basic differences between the Calvinistic and the Arminian system to theology, and to show what the Bible teaches concerning these subjects. The harmony that exists between the various doctrines of the Christian faith is such that error in regard to any one of them produces more or less distortion in all of the others.

There are in reality only two types of religious thought. There is the religion of faith, and there is the religion of works. We believe that what has been known in Church History as Calvinism is the purest and most consistent embodiment of the religion of faith, while that which has been known as Arminianism has been diluted to a dangerous degree by the religion of works and that it is therefore an inconsistent and unstable form of Christianity. In other words, we believe that Christianity comes to its fullest and purest expression in Reformed Faith.

In the early part of the fifth century these two types of religious thought came into direct conflict in a remarkably clear contrast as embodied in two fifth-century theologians, Augustine and Pelagius. Augustine pointed men to God as the source of all true spiritual wisdom and strength, while Pelagius threw men back on themselves and said that they were able in their own strength to do all that God commanded, otherwise God would not command it. We believe that Arminianism represents a compromise between these two systems, but that while in its more evangelical form, as in early Wesleyanism, it approaches the religion of faith, it nevertheless does contain serious elements of error.

We are living in a day in which practically all of the historic churches are being attacked from within by unbelief. Many of them have already succumbed. And almost invariably the line of descent has been from Calvinism to Arminianism, from Arminianism to Liberalism, and then to Unitarianism. And the history of Liberalism and Unitarianism shows that they deteriorate into a social gospel that is too weak to sustain itself. We are convinced that the future of Christianity is bound up with that system of theology historically called "Calvinism.' Where the God centered principles of Calvinism have been abandoned, there has been a strong tendency downward into the depths of man centered naturalism or secularism. Some have declared - rightly, we believe - that there is no consistent stopping place between Calvinism and atheism.

The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God. This represents the purpose of the Triune God as absolute and unconditional, independent of the whole finite creation, and originating solely in the eternal counsel of His will. He appoints the course of nature and directs the course of history down to the minutest details. His decrees therefore are eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise and sovereign. They are represented in the Bible as being the basis of the divine foreknowledge of all future events, and not conditioned by that foreknowledge or by anything originating in the events themselves.

Every thinking person readily sees that some sovereignty rules his life. He was not asked whether or not he would have existence, when or what or where he would be born, whether in the twentieth century or before the Flood, whether male or female, whether white or black, whether in the United States, or China, or Africa. All of those things were sovereignly decided for him before he had any existence. It has been recognized by Christians in all ages that God is the Creator and Ruler of the world, and that as such He is the ultimate source of all power that is found in the world. Hence nothing can come to pass apart from His sovereign will. Otherwise He would not be truly GOD. And when we dwell on this truth we find that it involves considerations which establish the Calvinistic and disprove the Arminian position.

By virtue of the fact that God has created everything that exists, He is the absolute Owner and final Disposer of all that He has made. He exerts not merely a general influence, but actually rules in the affairs of men (Acts 4:24-28). Even the nations are as the small dust of the balance when compared with His greatness (Is. 40:12-17). Amid all the apparent defeats and inconsistencies of our human lives, God is actually controlling all things in undisturbed majesty. Even the sinful actions of men can occur only by His permission and with the strength that he gives the creature. And since He permits not unwillingly but willingly, then all that comes to pass - including even the sinful actions and ultimate destiny of men - must be, in some sense, in accordance with what He has eternally purposed and decreed. Just in proportion as this is denied, God is excluded from the government of the world, and we have only a finite God. Naturally, some problems arise which in our present state of knowledge we are not able fully to explain. But that is not a sufficient reason for rejecting what the Scriptures and the plain dictates of reason affirm to be true.

And shall we not believe that God can convert a sinner when He pleases? Cannot the Almighty, the omnipotent Ruler of heaven and earth, change the character of the creatures He has made? He changed the water into wine at Cana and converted Saul on the road to Damascus. The leper said, "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean" (Matt. 8:2). And at a word his leprosy was cleansed. Let us not believe, as do the Arminians, that God cannot control the human will, or that He cannot regenerate a soul when He pleases. He is as able to cleanse the soul as the body. If He chose He could raise up such a flood of Christian ministers, missionaries and workers of various kinds, and could so work through His Holy Spirit, that the entire world would be converted in a very short time. If He had purposed to save all men He could have sent hosts of angels to instruct them and to do supernatural works on the earth. He could have worked marvelously in the heart of every person so that no one would have been lost.

Since evil exists only by His permission, He could, if He chose, blot it out of existence. His power in this respect was shown, for instance, in the work of the destroying angel who in one night slew all of the first-born of the Egyptians (Ex. 12:29), and in another night slew 185,000 of the Assyrian army (II Kings 19:35). It was shown when the earth opened and swallowed Korah and his rebellious allies (Nu. 16.31-35). King Herod was smitten and died a horrible death (Acts 12:23). In Daniel 4:34-35 we read that the Most High God's "dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom from generation to generation; and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he doeth according to his will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and no one can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"

All of this brings out the basic principle of the Reformed Faith - the sovereignty of God. God created this world in which we find ourselves, He owns it, and He is running it according to His own sovereign good pleasure. God has lost none of His power, and it is highly dishonoring to Him to suppose that He is struggling along with the human race, doing the best He can to persuade men to do right, but unable to accomplish His eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise, and sovereign purpose.

Any system which teaches that the serious intentions of God can in some cases be defeated, and that man, who is not only a creature but a sinful creature, can exercise veto power over the plans of Almighty God, is in striking contrast to the biblical idea of his immeasurable exaltation by which He is removed from all weaknesses of humanity. That the plans of men are not always executed is due to a lack of power, or a lack of wisdom, or both. But since God is unlimited in these and in all other resources, no unforeseen emergencies can arise. To Him the causes for change have no existence. To assume that His plan fails and that he strives to no effect is to reduce Him to the level of His creatures and make Him no God at all.

Man's Totally Helpless Condition
As we read the works of various Arminian writers, it seems that their first and perhaps most serious error is that they do not give sufficient importance to the sinful rebellion and spiritual separation of the human race from God that occurred in the fall of Adam. Some neglect it altogether, while for others it seems to be a far away event that has little influence in the lives of people today. But unless we insist on the reality of that spiritual separation from God, and the totally disastrous effect that it had on the entire human race, we shall never be able properly to appreciate our real condition or our desperate need of a Redeemer.

Perhaps it will help us to realize more clearly what fallen man's condition really is if we compare it with that of the fallen angels. Angels were created before man, and each angel was placed on test as an individual, personal, moral being. This apparently was a pure test of obedience, as was that of Adam. Some of the angles stood their test, for reasons only fully known to God, and, as a result, were then confirmed in a state of perfect angelic holiness, and are now the elect angels in heaven (I Tim. 5:21). But others fell and are now the demons that we read of in the Scriptures, the devil apparently being the one of highest rank among those who fell.

In Jude we read of "angels that kept not their own principality but left their proper habitation, he [God] hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (v.6). And in II Peter we read that "God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment" (2:4). The devil and the demons are totally alienated from God, totally given offer to sin, and without any hope of redemption. Their fate is described by Christ as that of being cast into "the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: (Matt. 25:41).

There is no redemption for fallen angels. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, "For verily not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth help to the seed of Abraham" (2:16). Their fate is fixed and certain. For men and for angels endless punishment is the penalty for endless sinning against God. Some would try to make God appear unjust as though He inflicts endless punishment for sins committed only in this life. But lost men and lost angels or demons are endlessly in rebellion against God, and they endlessly receive punishment for that rebellion.

But when God created man a moral creature, He proceeded on a different plan than He did with the angelic order. Instead of creating all men at one time and placing them on test individually, He created one man, with a physical body, from whom the entire human race would descend, and who, because of his union with all of those who would come after him, could be appointed as the legal or federal head and representative of the entire human race. If he stood the test, he and all of his descendants, his children, would be confirmed in holiness and established in a state of perpetual creaturely bliss as were the holy angels. But if he fell, as did the other angels, he and all his posterity would be subject to eternal punishment. It was as if God said, "This time, if sin is to enter, let it enter by one man, so that redemption also can be provided by one man."

Therefore Adam in his representative capacity was placed on a test of pure human obedience. The penalty of disobedience was clearly set before him: "And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:16-17).

Hence, the clearly declared penalty for sin was death - exactly the same penalty that had been inflicted on the angels who fell. As with angels, it was purely a test of whether or not man would be an obedient and appreciative subject in the kingdom of heaven. It was a perfectly fair, simple test, clearly set forth, very much in Adam's favor, for which he would have no excuse if he disobeyed.

But, tragedy of tragedies, Adam fell. And the entire human race fell representatively in him. The consequences of his sin are all comprehended under the term death, in its widest sense. It was primarily spiritual death, or separation from God, that had been threatened. Adam did not die physically until 930 years after he fell. But he was spiritually estranged from God and died spiritually the very instant that he sinned. And from that instant his life became an unceasing march to the grave. Man in this life has not gone as far in the ways of sin as have the devil and the demons, for he still receives many blessings through common grace, such as health, wealth, family and friends, the beauties of nature, and he still is surrounded with many restraining influences. But he is on his way. And if not checked, man would eventually become as totally evil as are the demons. In his fallen state he fears God, tries to flee from Him, and literally hates Him, as do the demons. If left to himself he would remain forever in that condition, because as it is written, "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God" (Rom. 3:10-11). Nothing, absolutely nothing, but a mighty supernatural act on the part of God can rescue him from that condition. Hence if he is to be rescued, God must take the initiative, must pay the penalty for him, must cleanse him from his guilt, and so reinstate him in holiness and righteousness.

And that is precisely what God does. He sovereignly picks a man up out of the kingdom of Satan, and places him in the kingdom of heaven. Those are the elect that are referred to some 25 times in the Scriptures: Matt. 24:22: "For the elect's sake, whom he chose, he shortened those days" (at the destruction of Jerusalem). I Thess. 1:4: "Knowing, brethren, beloved of God, your election." Rom. 11:7: "The election obtained it, and the rest were hardened." Rom. 8:33: "Who shall lay anything to charge of God's elect"; and many more.

The Bible tells us that God has rescued a multitude of the human race from the penalty of their sins. In order to perform that work, Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, took upon Himself human nature through the miracle of the virgin birth, and was born into the human race as any normal child is born. God thus became incarnate, became one of us. Jesus then lived a perfectly sinless life among men as the representative of His people, placed Himself before His own law, and suffered in His own Person the penalty that God had prescribed for sin. In His sinless life He kept perfectly the law of God that Adam had broken, and so earned perfect righteousness for His people and thereby earned for them the right to enter heaven. What He suffered, as a Person of infinite value and dignity, was a just equivalent of what His people would have suffered in an eternity in hell. In this manner He freed His people from the law of sin and death. And as the fruits of that redemptive work are applied to those who have been given to the Son by the Father, they are said to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, that is, to be made alive spiritually, to be born again.

Paul expresses this broad truth when in the Epistle to the Romans he says:

"Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned ... But no as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many ... so then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation, even so through the one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification to life. For as through the one's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous" (Rom. 5:12-19).

Unless one sees that contrast between the first and the second Adam, he will never understand the Christian system.

And writing to the saints that were at Ephesus, Paul said, "And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins." And he goes on to say that we:

"...were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest, but God, being rich in mercy for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus: for by grace have ye been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, that no man should glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them." (Eph. 2:1-10)

In Christian theology there are three separate and distinct acts of imputation. In the first place Adam's sin is imputed to all of us, his children, that is, judicially set to our account so that we are held responsible for it and suffer the consequences of it. This is commonly known as the doctrine of Original Sin. In the second place, and in precisely the same manner, our sin is imputed to Christ so that He suffers the consequences of it. And in the third place, Christ's righteousness is imputed to us and secures for us entrance into heaven. We are, of course, no more personally guilty of Adam's sin than Christ is personally guilty of our sin, or than we are personally meritorious because of His righteousness. In each case it is a judicial transaction. We receive salvation from Christ in precisely the same way that we receive condemnation and ruin from Adam. In each case the result follows because of the close official union which exists between the persons involved. To reject any one of these three steps is to reject an essential part of the Christian system.

Thus we see the strict parallel between Adam and Christ in the matter of salvation. In the above passages Paul piles one phrase upon another stressing the fact that we were not merely sick, or spiritually disinclined, but spiritually dead. Christ Himself said, "Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). And again He said, "Why do ye not understand my speech: even because ye cannot hear my words" (John 8:43). The unregenerate man cannot see the kingdom of God, nor hear in any spiritually discerning way the words spoken concerning it, much less can he get into it. Had we been left to ourselves we, like the fallen angels, would never have turned to God.

A spiritually dead person can no more give himself spiritual life that a physically dead person can give himself physical live. That requires a supernatural act on the part of God. We get into the family of God in precisely the same way that we get into our human family, by being born into it. By that supernatural act God Himself, through His Holy Spirit, sovereignly takes us out of the kingdom of Satan and places us in His spiritual kingdom by a spiritual rebirth.

And having once been born onto the kingdom of God, we can never become unborn. Since it took a supernatural act to bring us into a state of spiritual life, it would take another such act to take us out of that state. Hence the absolute certainty that those who have been regenerated and who therefore have become truly Christian will never lose their salvation, but will providentially be kept by the power of God through all the trials and difficulties of this life and will be brought into the heavenly kingdom. "He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life" (John 5:24). "If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature" (II Cor. 5:17). "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who gave them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (John 10:27-29). This is known as the doctrine of eternal security or the perseverance of the saints.

This gift of eternal live is not conferred upon all men, but only upon those whom God chooses. This does not mean that any who want to be saved are excluded, for the invitation is "He that will [KJV, whosoever will], let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17). The fact is that a spiritually dead person cannot will to come. "No man can come unto me except the Father that sent me draw [literally, drags] him" (John 6:44). Only those who are quickened (make spiritually alive) by the Holy Spirit ever have that will or that desire. These in Scripture are called the elect. But in contrast with these, there is another group that we may call the non-elect. And concerning them Professor Floyd Hamilton has very appropriately written:

"All that God does is to let them alone and allow them to go their own way without interference. It is their nature to be evil, and God simply has foreordained to leave that nature unchanged. The picture often painted by opponents of Calvinism, of a cruel God refusing to save all who want to be saved, is a gross caricature. God saves all who want to be saved, but no one whose nature has not been changed wants to be saved."

Christ's Atonement
We are not told why God does not save all mankind when all were equally undeserving, and when the sacrifice on Calvary was that of a Person of infinite value, amply sufficient to save all men had God so desired it. But the Scriptures do tell us that not all will be saved. However, we can say that the atonement, which was worked out at an enormous cost to God Himself, is His own property, and that He is at liberty to make whatever use of it He chooses. No man has any claim to any part of it. We are told repeatedly that salvation is by grace. And grace is favor shown to the undeserving, even to the ill- deserving. If any part of man's salvation were due to his own good works, then indeed there would be a difference in men, and those who had responded to the gracious offer could justly point the finger of scorn at the lost and say, "You had the same chance that I had. I accepted, but you refused. Therefore you have no excuse." But no. God has so arranged this system that those who are saved can only be eternally grateful that God has saved them.

It is not for us to ask why God does as He does, for the Scripture declares:

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou make me thus? Or hath no the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels fitted unto destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy which he afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he also called." (Rom. 9:20-24)

Only the Calvinist seems to take the fall of man seriously. A proper evaluation of the fall and of man's present hopeless condition is the missing element in so much of today's thinking, teaching and preaching. Arminianism seriously errs in assuming that man has sufficient ability to turn to God if only he will. The Calvinist insists that man is not merely sick or indisposed or just needs the right incentive, but that he is spiritually dead, and that the atonement of Christ does not merely make salvation an abstract possibility such that all men can turn to God if they will. The Calvinist holds that the atonement was an objective work accomplished in history which removed all legal barriers against those to whom it was to be applied, and that it would be followed by the work of the Holy Spirit subjectively applying the merits of that atonement to the hearts of those for whom it was divinely intended.

We call attention again to one of the most important verses in Scripture concerning the matter of salvation: "No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him" (John 6:44). Another like it is; "All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and he that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37). And to the Christians in Corinth, Paul wrote: "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged" (I Cor. 2:14).

And how does God cause the elect to exercise faith? The answer is: In regeneration the Holy Spirit subdues man's heart to Himself, and imparts to man a new nature which loves righteousness and hates sin. He does not force man against his will, but makes him lovingly and spontaneously obedient to His will. When the Lord Jesus appeared to the hardened persecutor Saul as he was on the way to Damascus, he immediately became obedient to the Lord's will. "Thy people offer themselves willingly in the day of thy power," said the Psalmist (110:3). Thus God gives His people the will to come. That act on God's part, in the sub-conscious nature of the person, is known as regeneration, or as a new birth, or being born again. When a man is thus given a new nature, he reacts according to that nature, as do all of God's creatures. He then exercises faith and does good works characteristic of repentance as naturally as the grape vine produces grapes. Whereas sin was his natural element, now holiness becomes his natural element - not all at once, for he still has remnants of the old nature clinging to him, and as long as he remains in this world he still is in a sinful environment. But as his new nature is free to express itself he grows in righteousness; he enjoys reading God's Word, praying, and having fellowship with other Christians.

We therefore have to choose between an atonement of high efficiency which is perfectly accomplished, and an atonement of wide extension which is imperfectly accomplished. We cannot have both. If we had both we would have universal salvation. But the Arminian extends the atonement so widely that so far as its actual effect is concerned, it has practically no value other than as an example of unselfish service. Dr. B. B. Warfield used a very simple illustration to present this truth. He said that the atonement is like pie dough - the wider you roll it the thinner it becomes. And the Arminian, in making it apply to all men, reduces its effectiveness to such an extent that it becomes practically no atonement at all.

Furthermore, for God to have laid the sins of all men on Christ would mean that as regards the lost He would be punishing their sins twice, once in Christ, and then again in them. Certainly that would be unjust. If Christ paid their debt, they are free, and the Holy Spirit would invariably bring them to faith and repentance. If the atonement was truly unlimited, it would mean that Christ died for multitudes whose fate already had been determined, who already were in hell at the time He suffered. If the atonement merely nullified the sentence that was against man so as to give him a new chance if he would exercise faith and obedience, it would mean that God was placing him on test again as was his ancestor Adam. But that kind of a test was tried and had its outcome long ago, even in a far more favorable environment. Carried to its logical conclusion, the theory of unlimited atonement leads to absurdity.

We should remember that Christ's suffering in His human nature, as He hung on the cross those six hours, was not primarily physical, but mental and spiritual. When He cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," He was literally suffering the pangs of hell. For that is essentially what hell is, separation from God, separation from everything that is good and desirable. Such suffering is beyond our comprehension. But since He suffered as a divine-human person, His suffering was a just equivalent for all that His people would have suffered in an eternity in hell.

As a matter of fact, the redeemed man gains more through redemption in Christ than he lost through the fall of Adam. For in the incarnation God literally came into the human race and took human nature upon Himself, which nature Christ in His glorified body will retain forever, and evidently He will be the only visible God that we will see in heaven. Peter tells us that we now are "partakers of the divine nature" (II Peter 1:4); and Paul says that we are "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17). Think of that! Partakers of the divine nature, and joint-heirs with Christ! What greater blessing could God possibly confer upon us? As such we are superior to the angels, for they are designated in Scripture only as God's messengers, His servants.

Ultimately the Arminian is faced with precisely the same problem as is the Calvinist - that broader problem as to why a God of infinite holiness and power permits sin at all. In our present state of knowledge we can give only a partial answer. But the Calvinist faces up to that problem, acknowledges the Scriptural doctrine that all men had their fair and favorable chance in Adam, that God now graciously saves some of the fallen race while leaving others to go their own chosen sinful way and manifests His justice in their punishment. But having admitted foreknowledge, the Arminianism has no explanation as to why God purposefully and deliberately creates those who He knows will be lost and who will spend eternity in hell.

However, as regards the problem of evil, we can say that God created this world as a theater in which He would display His glory, His marvelous attributes for all of His creatures to see and admire - His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Here we are concerned primarily with His justice.

God's justice demands that goodness must be rewarded and that sin must be punished. And it is just as necessary that sin be punished as it is that goodness be rewarded. God would be unjust if He failed to do either. Therefore He created men and angels not as robots who would automatically produce good works as a machine produces bolts or tin cans but who would deserve no rewards, but as free moral agents, in His own image, capable, in Adam before the fall, of choosing between good and evil. He manifests His justice toward those whom He has purposed in grace to save by rewarding them for the good works that are found in Christ their Savior and credited to them, confirming them in holiness, and admitting them into heaven. And He manifests His justice toward those whom He has purposed to by-pass for their willing continuance in sin.

Likewise, if sin had been excluded, there could have been no adequate revelation God's most glorious attributes, grace, mercy, love and holiness, as is displayed in His redemption of sinners. Let us remember that the angels in heaven earned salvation through a covenant of works, by keeping God's law. As in the Case of Adam, they had been promised certain rewards if they obeyed. They did obey, and were confirmed in holiness. They have not experienced salvation by grace. There is an old hymn which says, "When I sing redemption's story, the angels will fold their wings and listen." And so it will be in the ultimate contrast between men and angels.

Hence the explanation of sin is that God permits it, but controls and overrules it for His own glory. If sin had been excluded from the creation those glorious attributes could never have been adequately displayed before His intelligent universe of men and angels, but for the most part would have remained forever hidden in the depths of the divine nature.

God's Foreknowledge
The evangelical Arminian acknowledges that God has foreknowledge, and that He therefore is able to predict future events. But if God foreknows any future event, then that event is as fixed and certain as if foreordained. For foreknowledge implies certainty, and certainly implies foreordination. The evangelical Arminian does not deny that there is such a thing as election to salvation, for he cannot get rid of the words "elect" and "election," which occur some twenty-five times in the New Testament. But he tries to destroy the force of these words by saying that election is based on foreknowledge, that God looks down the broad avenue of the future and sees those who will respond to His gracious offer, and so elects them.

But in acknowledging foreknowledge, the Arminian makes a fatal concession. Figuratively speaking, he cuts his own throat, for the simple reason that as God foresees those who will be saved, He also sees those who will be lost! Why, then, does He create those who will be lost? Certainly, He is not under any obligation to create them. There is no power outside Himself forcing Him to do so. If He wants all men to be saved and is earnestly trying to save all men, He could at least refrain from creating those who, if created, certainly will be lost.

The Arminian cannot consistently hold to the foreknowledge of God and yet deny the doctrines of election and predestination. The question persists: Why does God create those who He knows will go to hell? It would be mere foolishness for Him to wish to save or try to save those who He knows will be lost. That would be for Him to work at cross purposes with Himself. Even a man has better sense than to try to do what he knows he will not do or cannot do. The Arminian has no alternative but to deny the foreknowledge of God - and then he has only a limited, ignorant, finite God who in reality is not God at all in the true sense of that word. If election is based on foreknowledge, that makes it so meaningless that it becomes more confusing than enlightening. For even as regards the elect, what sense is there for God to elect those who He knows are going to elect themselves? That would be just plain nonsense.

The Universalistic Passages
Probably the most plausible defense for Arminianism is found in the universalistic passages in Scripture. Three of the most quoted are: II Peter 3:9, "Not wishing [or, KJV, not willing] that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"; I Tim. 2:4, [God our Savior] "who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth"; and I Tim. 2:5,6, "...Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all."

In regard to these verses we must keep in mind that, as we have said earlier, God is the absolute sovereign Ruler of heaven and earth, and we are never to think of Him as wishing or striving to do what He knows He will not do. For Him to do otherwise would be for Him to act foolishly. Since Scripture tells us that some men are going to be lost, II Peter 3:9 cannot mean that God is earnestly wishing or striving to save all individual men. For if it were His will that every individual of mankind should be saved, then not one soul could be lost. "For who hath resisted his will?" (Rom. 9:19).

These verses simply teach that God is benevolent, and that He does not delight in the sufferings of His creatures any more than a human father delights in the punishment that he sometimes must inflict upon his son. The word "will" is used in different senses in Scripture as in our everyday conversation. It is sometimes used in the sense of "desire" or "purpose." A righteous judge does not will (desire) that anyone should be hanged or sentenced to prison, yet he wills (pronounces sentence) that the guilty person shall be punished. In the same sense and for sufficient reasons a man may will to have a limb removed, or an eye taken out, even though he certainly does not desire it.

Arminians insist that in II Peter 3:9 the words "any" and "all" refer to all mankind without exception. But it is important first of all to see to whom those words were addressed. In the first verse of chapter 1, we find that the epistle is addressed not to mankind at large, but to Christians: "...to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us." And in a preceding verse (3:1), Peter had addressed those to whom he was writing as "beloved." And when we look at the verse as a whole, and not merely at the last half, we find that it is not primarily a salvation verse at all, but a second coming verse! It begins by saying that "The Lord is not slacking concerning his promise" [singular]. What promise? Verse 4 tells us: "the promise of his coming." The reference is to His second coming, when He will come for judgment, and the wicked will perish in the lake of fire. The verse has reference to a limited group. It says that the Lord is "long-suffering to us-ward," His elect, many of whom had not yet been regenerated, and who therefore had not yet come to repentance. Hence we may quite properly read verse 9 as follows: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some count slackness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance."

In regard to I Tim. 2:4,6 "Who would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth ... who gave himself a ransom for all," is used in various senses. Oftentimes it means, not all men without exception, but all men without distinction - Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, men and women, rich and poor. And in I Tim. 2:4-6 it clearly is used in that sense. Through many centuries the Jews had been, with few exceptions, the exclusive recipients of God's saving grace. They had become the most intensely nationalistic and intolerant people in the world. Instead of recognizing their position as that of God's representatives to all the people of the world, they had taken those blessings to themselves. Even the early Christians for a time were inclined to appropriate the mission of the Messiah only to themselves. The salvation of the Gentiles was a mystery that had not been known in other ages (Eph. 4:6; Col. 1:27). So rigid was the pharisaic exclusivism that the Gentiles were called unclean, common, sinners of the Gentiles, even dogs; and it was not lawful for a Jew to keep company with or have any deals with a Gentile (John 4:9, Acts 10:28, 11:3). After an orthodox Jew had been out in the marketplace where he had come in contact with Gentiles he was regarded as unclean (Mark 7:4). After Peter had preached to the Roman Centurion Cornelius and the others who were gathered at his house, he was severely taken to task by the Church in Jerusalem, and we can almost hear the gasp of wonder when, after Peter told them what had happened, they said, "Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance to life" (Acts 22:15), that is, not to every individual in the world, but to Jews and Gentiles alike. Used in this sense the word "all" has no reference to individuals, but simply to mankind in general.

When it was said of John the Baptist that "There went out unto him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins" (Mark 1:5), we know that not every individual did so respond. We read that after Peter and John had healed the lame man at the door of the temple, "all men glorified God for that which was done" (Acts 4:21). Jesus told his disciples that they would be "hated of all men" for His name's sake (Luke 21:17). And when Jesus said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself" (John 12:32), He certainly did not mean that every individual of mankind would be so drawn. What He did mean was that Jews and Gentiles, men of all nations and races, would be drawn to Him. And that is what we see is actually happening.

In I Cor. 15:22 we read, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be make alive." This verse is often quoted by Arminians to prove unlimited or universal atonement. This verse is from Paul's famous resurrection chapter, and the context makes it clear that he is not talking about life in this age, whether physical or spiritual, but about the resurrection life. Christ is the first to enter the resurrection life, then, when He comes, His people also enter into their resurrection life. And what Paul says is that at that time a glorious resurrection life will become a reality, not for all mankind, but for all those who are in Christ. And this point is illustrated by the well known fact that the race fell in Adam, who acted as its federal head and representative. What Paul says in effect this: "For as all born in Adam die, so also all born again in Christ shall be make alive." Verse 22, therefore, refers not to something past, nor to something present, but to something future; and it has no special bearing at all on the Calvinistic-Arminian controversy.

Two other verses that also are often quoted in defense of Arminianism are "Behold, I stand at the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him, and he with me" (Rev. 3:20); and "...he that will [KJV, whosoever will], let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17). This general invitation is extended to all men. It may be, and often is, the means that the Holy Spirit uses to arouse in certain individuals the desire for salvation as He puts forth His supernatural power to regenerate them. But these verses, taken by themselves, fail to take into consideration the truth that already has been stressed in this article, that fallen man is spiritually dead, and that as such he is as totally unable to respond to the invitation as are the fallen angels or demons. Fallen man is as dead spiritually as Lazarus was dead physically until Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth," and the Pharisee Nicodemus, "Except one be born anew [or, from above], he cannot see the kingdom of God"(John 3:3). And again, He said to the Pharisees, "why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word" (John 8:43). Apart from that divine assistance no one can hear the invitation or put forth the will to come to Christ.

The declaration that Christ died for "all" is made clearer by the song that the redeemed sing before the throne of the Lamb: "Thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. 5:9). Oftentimes the word "all" must be understood to mean all the elect, all His Church, all those whom the Father has given to the Son, as when Christ says, "All that which the Father giveth me shall come to me" (John 6:37), but not all men universally and every man individually. The redeemed host will be make up of men from all classes and conditions of life, of princes and peasants, of rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, Jews and Gentiles, men of all nations and races. That is the true universalism of Scripture.

The Two systems Contrasted
We have said that Christianity comes to its fullest expression in the Reformed Faith. The great advantage of the Reformed Faith is that in the framework of the Five Points of Calvinism it sets forth clearly what the Bible teaches concerning the way of salvation. Only when these truths are seen as a unit an in relation to each other can one really understand or appreciate the Christian system in all of its strength and beauty.

The reason that so many Christians have only a weak faith, and that so many churches present only a rather superficial form of Christianity, is that they never really see the system in its logical consistency. It is not enough for the professing Christian to know that God loves him and that his sins have been forgiven. He should know how and why his redemption has been accomplished and how it has been made effective. And that is set forth systematically in the Five Points of Calvinism.

Historically, the Five Points of Calvinism have been held by the Presbyterian and Reformed churches and by many Baptists, while the substance of the Five Points of Arminianism has been held by the Methodist and Lutheran churches and also by many Baptists.

The Five Points of Calvinism may be more easily remembered if hey are associated with the word T-U-L-I-P:

T - Total Inability
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible (Efficacious) Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints


The following material, taken from Romans: an Interpretive outline, by David N. Steele and Curtis Thomas, Baptist ministers in Little Rock, Arkansas, contrasts the Five Points of Calvinism with the Five Points of Arminianism in the clearest and most concise form that we have found anywhere. It is also included as an Appendix in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, by the present writer. Each of these books is published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, N.J.

THE "FIVE POINTS" OF ARMINIANISM
1. Free-Will or Human Ability

Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man's freedom. Each sinner posses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner's gift to God; it is man's contribution to salvation.

2. Conditional Election

God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

3. Universal Redemption or General Atonement

Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone's sins. Christ's redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.

4. The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted

The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit's call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man's contribution) proceeds and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man's free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ's saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God's grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.

5. Falling from Grace

Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith, etc. All Arminians have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ - that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost.

According to Arminianism:
Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) - man's response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, "choose" to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man's will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be recipients of the gift of salvation.

THE "FIVE POINTS" OF CALVINISM
1. Total Inability or Total Depravity

Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not - indeed he cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ - it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a port of God's gift of salvation - it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God.

2. Unconditional Election

God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response of obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God's choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God's choice of the sinner, not the sinner's choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

3. Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement

Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation.

4. The Efficacious Call of the Spirit or Irresistible Grace

In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.

5. Perseverance of the Saints

All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.

According to Calvinism:
Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.


Amen.

S
sermonindex

I am tired of seeing long lists of quotes from the so-called "church-fathers". Why do I need men to interpret the Scriptures for me? I respect the historical benefit of reading such things, but dear brothers, when it comes to BIBLE DOCTRINE, let us not look to mere men or other sources for our interpetations or support.

I can just as easily teach anything and find a long list of quotes throughout history to back it up, even the heresy of Pelagianism -as one who used to come on this board frequently does. It means nothing. The Word of God stands ALONE, it stands AUTHORITIVE, and it stands FINAL. There is no court of appeal after it. Sola-Scriptura! Not Justin Martyr, not Luther, not Calvin, and not John Wesley! THE WORD OF GOD is TRUTH. Scripture alone, not Scripture plus something!

Are we going to keep quoting Justin Martyr in support of Annihilationism too? Or are we going to quote Tertullian in support of Montanist heresies? Or are we going to quote what is alleged to be Ignatius in support of a Roman Catholic Bishop ruling over the church like a Pope and adminitering the Eucahrist? These men did not even agree with each other, let alone with the Apostles in everything! Come on now my brothers, let us leave such things behind us and go straight to the source of all of God's truth, the Holy Scriptures.

The issue of God's sovereign election is stated frequently in the writings we know to be inspired by God. Why not go directly to the source, and expound on choice biblical texts? Anyone can cherry-pick verses in support of just about any idea. In order to be fair, this issue needs to quote all the Scriptures in support of election and those that seem to speak against it, exegete them in context, harmonize them all together in agreement with the Word as a whole, and make application as a result. I have not seen this done in these fruitless debates, and for that, I choose not to waste my time getting caught up in them.

But just for the sake of readers of this article, I wanted to put forth my two cents that going to the "church fathers" in support of Bible doctrine is dangerous. Paul said that just after his departure wolves would come in not sparing the flock, trying to draw disciples after themsleves (Acts 20:29). I'm not saying they're all wolves just saying that just because they're close in years to the time of the Apostles doesn't mean a thing, other than just for historical reference.

We have no authoritative interpreter of Scripture other than the Holy Spirit. 1 John 2:27. Don't listen to your own reasoning about what you think God should do, don't go to other men to hear their Scripture-less ideas, but go right to the Bible with a sincere heart asking God to teach you the truth. I did this years ago and God has shown me what I am fully convinced is the truth regarding divine sovereignty, and I stand on the Holy Scriptures for my case. Sadly, there are many on both sides of this issue who seem to stand on everything except clear Scripture for their case.

S
sermonindex

Are we going to keep quoting Justin Martyr in support of Annihilationism too? Or are we going to quote Tertullian in support of Montanist heresies? Or are we going to quote what is alleged to be Ignatius in support of a Roman Catholic Bishop ruling over the church like a Pope and adminitering the Eucahrist?

Paul said that just after his departure wolves would come in not sparing the flock, trying to draw disciples after themsleves (Acts 20:29). I'm not saying they're all wolves just saying that just because they're close in years to the time of the Apostles doesn't mean a thing, other than just for historical reference.

My thoughts exactly.

S
sermonindex

post deleted.

L
Lysa


Brother ccrider,

I just read your response... I didn't think you were calvinist so I couldn't understand the thoughtless comment so I did go back and reread. And I understand better why you used it now!!

If I in way offended you in that misunderstanding, I deeply apologize to you!

God bless you CC and thank you for your kind response!

S
sermonindex

Oh, I responded via PM. Thanks for your post and the PM. I understand what you were getting at which is why I apologized to Greg for the word use after the fact. I know you were being 'thoughtful' in your response and I did take heed to that :) God Bless you sister!!

G
Giggles

Good post makrothumia, but does that mean that the doctrines themselves cannot be known? Just because all cannot agree on truth does not mean it is unknowable or indiscoverable.

B
brodav9

Hi, I just wan't to add what I thought the Lord brought to mind. I looked through the message looking for the scripture Eph.1:4, I didn't see it and that would mean he did show me. No problem either way.

I think this passage says it all, that we were chosen. That's sovereignty. That is a message that Paul taught us that first we must tell them the gospel and if they don't receive it then we tell them if we are led by the Spirit, that no one can come to the father unless he draw them. Jn.6:44 that is the first priority You match that with Eph 1:4 chosen in him before the foundation of the world is before the cross.

when we talk about the sovereingty of God it disturbs a spirit of rebelion in people who are not saved, because sowereignty of God means control, and that is why the devil usurps on the earth see 2Cor.4:4 you know what just happened?? when I was getting ready to write that verse 2Cor.4:4 2 scripture verses came and blocked me from writing that verse, never had that happen before. They kind of blinded the page I'm writing on. I'm not saying it was the devil, it just confirmed that the god of this world blinds the minds of hearers of the word of God. We must pray in faith that all the people we send the word of God to, are prayed for. we must love all men and women first then God will open the eyes from being blinded. The love we have is the sufficient faith to work together with the Holy Spirit, to bring light into dark minds. That is the sovereignty of God united with prayer.

God would end the life of Moses sister Miriam but Moses prayed for her. God did save her, but he did also sovereignly punish. she was out of the camp a few days. God includes our prayers of faith in his sovereignty. God bless.

M
makrothumia

Thank you for an excellent question.

Yes all the doctrines can be known - "in part" - for now we can only know in part. There are great details to be mined from scriptural exegesis, but our ability to know fully how to properly relate the multi-faceted wisdom of God is limited. Everyone can benefit greatly from in- depth, linguistical and grammatical exegesis, but it is less likely that even given this diligent study - every question that remains could be sufficiently answered to everyone's satisfaction.
I am overjoyed at the daily discoveries biblical exegesis affords me, and at the same time, I am reminded "if anyone claims he "sees fully" anything, he does not yet "know experientially" as he ought.

makrothumia

G
Giggles

Great answer.

S
sermonindex

I just came across this verse, and it struck. I don't remember ever really understanding its purpose before, but it seems to have something to do with the Cal-Am debate.

1 Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is [u]the Saviour of all men[/u], [u]specially of those that believe[/u].

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 47 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate