THE EVOLUTION OF CALVINISM AFTER THE DEATH OF CALVIN: SUPRALAPSARIANISM & THE ORDO SALUTIS

Roger E. Olson writes the following in his The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform.

Although the major first-generation Protestant Reformers such as Luther, Zwingli and Calvin reacted against scholasticism and scholastic theology, their immediate followers fell back into a kind of scholastic thinking that placed a great deal more emphasis on philosophy and logic and sought to use these to construct highly coherent systems of Protestant doctrine.

This tendency of post-Reformation Protestant thinkers has earned them the dubious label of "Protestant scholastics," and their theology is often vaguely characterized as Protestant scholasticism. What many of them tried to do was discover and carve into stone a rigid Protestant orthodoxy that could repel all heresy, including attacks by skeptics and Roman Catholic critics.

Thus where Luther and Calvin had been comfortable with some degree of mystery in theology, these Protestant scholastics tended to expunge mystery, uncertainty and ambiguity from Protestant theology by imitating the style of Thomas Aquinas, who tried to use Scripture, tradition and reason to develop a comprehensive system of all truth. Of course, most of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Protestant scholastics were not aware of the similarities between their own theological projects and that of Thomas Aquinas and other medieval Catholic theologians. Nevertheless, later historical theologians examining them cannot help but notice the comparison. . . .

One of the prime examples of this budding Protestant scholasticism is Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza (1519-1605). Upon Calvin's death in 1564 "the full weight of Calvin's responsibility came upon Beza. Beza was the head of the [Genevan] academy, a teacher there, moderator of the Company of Pastors, a powerful influence with the magistrates of Geneva, and the spokesman and defender of the Reformed Protestant position."

Like numerous other Reformed pastors and theologians from all over Britain and Europe, Jacob Arminius studied under Beza for a time. Later, of course, he came to reject Beza's conclusions if not his scholastic methods of arriving at them. Beza is best known in the history of theology as one of the founders of the extreme type of Calvinist theology known as supralapsarianism. Many of the Reformed scholastics like Beza were fascinated with questions about the decrees of God. . . .

Beza and other post-Calvin Reformed theologians began to wonder and speculate about the "order of the divine decrees." In other words, they were concerned with the ultimate purposes of God in everything. Why did God create the world? Is his decree to create the world logically prior to his decree to predestine some persons to salvation and other persons to eternal damnation, or is it the other way around?

They agreed that all of God's decrees are simultaneous and eternal because they accepted Augustine's notion of eternity as an "eternal now" in which all times -- past, present and future -- are simultaneous. For God, they believed, there is no separation or even succession of moments. Everything is eternally present. Thus God does not decree something and then wait to see what happens and then decree something else in response. All of God's decrees in relation to what is outside of God (creation) are simultaneous and timeless.

Thus when Beza and other Protestant scholastics speculated and debated about the "order of the divine decrees," they were referring to their logical order and not to some chronological order. So the question was, What is the proper logical order of the decrees of God concerning creation and redemption? It matters because how one views God's ultimate purposes for things depends on how one views the order of the divine decrees and vice versa.

Beza and certain other Calvinists were obsessed with the doctrine of predestination more than Calvin himself ever had been. Whereas Calvin located the doctrine within the category of redemption as part of the gracious activity of God and admitted mystery regarding God's purposes in divine election and reprobation, Beza located predestination within the doctrine of God as a direct deduction from God's power, knowledge and providential rule. In this way he was closer to Zwingli than to Calvin.

Beza and most other Calvinists also deduced the doctrine of limited atonement -- that Christ died only for the elect and not for the reprobate -- from the doctrine of God's providence and electing decrees. . . . In order to protect the doctrine of predestination from any erosion by synergism, Beza and other rigid Calvinists of the sixteenth century developed supralapsarianism. Supra indicates logical priority to something else. Lapsarianism indicates reference to the fall of humanity (from the same root as lapse -- to "fall"). Thus supralapsarianism literally means "something prior to the Fall." That hardly explains its theological significance, however.

Theologically, supralapsarianism is a certain way of ordering the divine decrees so that God's decision and decree concerning predestination of humans to either heaven or hell precedes his decrees to create humans and allow them to fall. Here is the typical order of the divine decrees according to supralapsarianism:

1. The decree of God to predestine some creatures to salvation and eternal life and some other creatures to damnation and everlasting punishment in hell.
2. The decree of God to create.
3. The decree of God to allow human creatures to fall into sin.
4. The decree of God to provide the means of salvation (Christ and the gospel).
5. The decree of God to apply salvation (the righteousness of Christ) to the elect.

The supralapsarian order of the divine decrees makes clear that God's first and foremost purpose in his relation with the world is to glorify himself (always God's main motive in everything) by saving some creatures and damning others. Double predestination, then, logically precedes creation, the Fall and everything else, including Christ's incarnation and atonement in the mind and purpose of God.

Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1999), 455-458.

ARMINIUS ON HUMANITY CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

I. Man is a creature of God, consisting of a body and a soul, rational, good, and created after the Divine image: According to his body, created from pre-existing matter, that is, earth mixed and besprinkled with aqueous and ethereal moisture: according to his soul, created out of nothing, by the breathing of breath into his nostrils.

II. But that body would have been incorruptible, and by the grace of God would not have been liable to death, if man had not sinned, and had not by that deed procured for himself the necessity of dying. And because it was to be the future receptacle of the soul, it was furnished by the wise Creator with various and excellent organs.

III. But the soul is entirely of an admirable nature, if you consider its origin, substance, faculties, and habits: (1) Its Origin: For it is from nothing, created by infusion, and infused by creation, a body being duly prepared for its reception, that it might fashion matter as with form, and, being united to the body by a native bond, might with it compose one production. Created, I say, by God in time, as He still daily creates a new soul in each body.

IV. (2) Its Substance, which is simple, immaterial and immortal. Simple, I say, not with respect to God: For it consists of act and power or capability, of being and essence, of subject and accidents: But it is simple with respect to material and compound things. It is immaterial, because it can subsist by itself, and, when separated from the body, can operate alone. It is immortal, not indeed from itself, but by the sustaining grace of God.

V. (3) Its Faculties, which are two, the Understanding and the Will, as in fact the object of the soul is two-fold: For the Understanding apprehends entity and truth both universal and particular, by a natural and necessary, and therefore by an uniform act. But the Will has an inclination to good: yet this is either, according to the mode of its nature, to universal good and to that which is the Chief Good; or, according to the mode of liberty, to all other [kinds of] good.

VI. (4) Lastly. In Its Habits: which are, First. Wisdom, by which the intellect clearly and sufficiently understood the supernatural truth and goodness both of felicity and of righteousness. Secondly. Righteousness and the Holiness of Truth, by which the will was fitted and ready to follow what this Wisdom commanded to be done, and what it showed to be desired. This Righteousness and Wisdom are called "original," both because man had them from his very origin; and because, if man had continued in his integrity, they would also have been communicated to his posterity.

VII. In all these things, the image of God most wonderfully shone forth: We say that this is the likeness by which man resembled his Creator, and expressed it according to the mode of his capacity: In his soul, according to its substance, faculties and habits. In his Body: Though this cannot be properly said to have been created after the image of God who is pure Spirit, yet it is something divine, both from the circumstance that, if man had not sinned, his body would never have died, and because it is capable of special incorruptibility and glory, about which the Apostle treats in 1 Corinthians 15, because it displays some excellence and majesty beyond the bodies of other living creatures; and, lastly, because it is an instrument well fitted for admirable actions and operation. In his whole person, according to the excellence, integrity, and the dominion over the rest of the creatures, which were conferred upon him.

VIII. The parts of this image may be thus distinguished: Some of them may be called natural to man, and others supernatural; some essential to him, and others accidental. It is natural and essential to the soul to be a spirit, and to be endowed with the power of understanding and of willing, both according to nature and the mode of liberty. But the knowledge of God, and of things pertaining to eternal salvation, is supernatural and accidental; as are likewise the rectitude and holiness of the will according to that knowledge. Immortality is so far essential to the soul, that it cannot die unless it cease to be: But it is on this account supernatural and accidental, because it is through grace and the aid of preservation, which God is not bound to bestow on the soul.

IX. But the immortality of the body is entirely supernatural and accidental: For it can be taken away from the body, and the body can return to the dust from which it was taken. Its excellence above other living creatures, and its peculiar fitness to produce various effects, are natural to it and essential. Its dominion over the creatures which belongs to the whole man as consisting of body and soul, may be partly considered as belonging to it according to the excellence of nature, and partly as conferred upon it by gracious gift: Of which dominion this seems to be an evidence, that it is never taken wholly away from the soul, although it be varied, and be augmented and diminished according to degrees and parts.

X. Thus was man created, that he might know, love and worship his Creator, and might live with him forever in a state of blessedness. By this act of creation God most manifestly displayed the glory of His wisdom, goodness, and power.

XI. From this description of man it appears that he is both fitted to perform the act of religion to God, since such an act is required from him; that he is capable of the reward which may be properly adjudged to those who perform [acts of] religion to God, and of the punishment which may be justly inflicted on those who neglect religion; and therefore that religion may by a deserved right be required from man according to this relation: And this is the principal relation, according to which we must in sacred Theology treat about the creation of man after the image of God.

[During Arminius's time, to "perform religion," as he put it, was to do or live out the will of God as revealed in Scripture. One will find such phrases in the writings of Luther, Calvin, and Beza as well.]

XII. In addition to this image of God, and this reference to supernatural and spiritual things, comes under our consideration the state of the natural life, in which the first man was created and constituted, according to the apostle Paul, "That which is natural was first, and afterwards that which is spiritual" (1 Cor. 15:46). This state is founded in the natural union of body and soul, and in the life which the soul naturally lives in the body; from which union and life it is that the soul procures for its body things which are good for it; and, on the other hand, the body is ready for offices which are congruous to its nature and desires.

According to this state or condition, there is a mutual relation between man and the good things of this world; the effect of which is that man can desire them and in procuring them for himself can bestow that labour which He deems to be necessary and convenient.

James Arminius, "Seventy-Nine Private Disputations: Disputation XXVI. On the Creation of Man After the Image of God," The Works of Arminius, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:362-64.

THE GIFT OF PROPHECY AND ITS SUBMISSION TO SCRIPTURE

The apostle Paul writes: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that all God's people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16 TNIV). Rather than argue that for which constitutes Scripture, as if Paul means, "Every Scripture that is God-breathed is useful," etc., meaning that there are scriptures which are not God-breathed, our focus here is on the function and authority of Scripture in its relation to the spiritual gift of prophecy.

The apostle Peter concurs: "We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it. . . . Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:19-21 TNIV).

This "prophetic message" has been written down for us in what we call the Bible. But Scripture also informs us of the use of the gift of prophecy, or prophesying, by believers in the New Testament church, who have been gifted by the Holy Spirit, who grants this ability to whomever He sovereignly chooses (1 Cor. 12:7, 10, 11). Three questions need to be asked: 1) What is the nature of this gift? 2) Is this gift still being given by the Holy Spirit? and 3) If so, how does this gift operate in accordance with the authority of Scripture?

The gift or manifestation of prophecy (or of one who prophesies) is variously interpreted. Dispensationalist Charles C. Ryrie, for example, defines the gift of prophecy thus: "Like apostleship, prophecy is also used in both a general sense and a technical sense. In the general sense it refers to proclaiming and thus to preaching. But technically a prophet was not only able to proclaim God's message but he also was able to predict the future."¹

If Ryrie's definition or description of the gift is accurate, in the general sense, then we must allow for women preachers (something to which Ryrie would not subscribe), for Scripture explicitly informs us of women who were gifted in prophesying in the New Testament church (Acts 2:17-18; 1 Cor. 11:5). Conveniently for Ryrie, in the technical sense, he insists that the gift was "for the founding of the church" and was rendered "unnecessary after that period and after Revelation was written in the New Testament."² Scriptural warrant for that assertion remains to be seen.

Some have reasoned NT prophesying as merely sermon preparation and delivery. But the spontaneous nature of prophecy in the NT renders this view inacccurate (1 Cor. 14:29-30). Others have alluded that it is the gift to interpret prophetic, end-times events prior to Christ's return. The burden of proof belongs to those who make that assertion. Still others see the gift as a vibrant, spontaneous expression of the Holy Spirit working through an individual for the church today. Calvinist Wayne A. Grudem defines the gift of prophecy:

Although several definitions have been given for the gift of prophecy, a fresh examination of the New Testament teaching on this gift will show that it should be defined not as "predicting the future," nor as "proclaiming a word from the Lord," nor as "powerful preaching" -- but rather as "telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind."³

Grudem's definition is a nuanced Pentecostal / Charismatic view, though he differs with Pentecostals on the nature of the utterance itself. Notes from the Life in the Spirit New Testament Commentary maintain:

The gift of "prophecy" (or the word "prophet") is the only gift that occurs in all of Paul's listings of gifts, an indication of its importance and priority in relation to other gifts (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:8-10, 28-30; Eph. 4:11). It is both continuous and discontinuous with the Old Testament phenomenon of prophetic utterances. Its primary function is not foretelling the future but rather a telling forth of God's message. It is a spontaneous, intelligible utterance, usually delivered in the assembly of believers.⁴

Whatever scholars conclude about the nature of prophecy in the NT church, it must include its ability to edify (spiritually build up) the body of Christ for strengthening, encouraging and comforting (1 Cor. 14:3). Inherently, the gift has the potential, if practiced under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, to convict unbelievers of sin and bring them under judgment -- in that, once convicted, the person will conclude that "God is really among you!" (1 Cor. 14:24-25).

The definition given by Grudem and Pentecostals works as well as any. But two very significant questions remain: 1) Is this gift still being given to or expressed through believers by the Holy Spirit in the church today as defined by Grudem and Pentecostals? and 2) If so, then how does this gift operate in accordance with the authority of Scripture? Or, does this gift undermine sola Scriptura?

Those who insist that such gifts as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 passed away or were not given to believers in the church by the Spirit after the first century, or after the completion of the canon of Scripture in the fourth century, take their cue from Paul's words: "Love never fails. But where there are prophesies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears" (1 Cor. 13:8-10 TNIV).

If "when completeness comes" is referring to the completion of the NT scriptures, no more vague expression could have been written! Contextually, however, "when completeness comes" refers to seeing Christ or God "face to face," as Paul writes in 1 Cor. 13:12. He communicates about a time in the future, not an object to come into existence (i.e. the Bible). Paul indicates that "now" we do not see spiritual reality as clearly as we will "then," when we are "face to face" with Him; "now" we know things only in part, but "then" we will "know fully," just as we have been fully known by the Lord. The completion of the NT canon did not bring believers into complete spiritual knowledge, nor do we now see Him "face to face." Clearly, Paul is referring to the eschaton (the end when we shall see Christ), not to the completion of the canon.

Moreover, Paul writes that the gift of prophecy (Eph. 4:11) is purposed for the equipping of God's people "for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up" (Eph. 4:12 TNIV). How long did Paul explicitly indicate that this manifestation would endure? He answers: "until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13 TNIV). Clearly, Paul is referring to the eschaton (the end when we shall see Christ; cf. 1 John 3:2), not to the completion of the canon.

The term "last days" refers to the time period from Christ's ascension until His return. Peter, having to explain the evidences of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, says: "this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel: And it will be in the last days, says God, that I will pour out My Spirit on all humanity; then your sons and your daughters will prophesy. . . .'" (Acts 2:16-17 HCSB).

Scripture unequivocally teaches that the gift of prophecy would remain throughout the "last days," i.e. until the return of Christ Jesus. Moderate Calvinist Millard J. Erickson comments: "Conversely, however, no conclusive case can be made for the contention that such gifts are not for today and cannot occur at the present time."⁵

Since this is the case then how does the exercising of the gift of prophecy not undermine the authority of Scripture (or sola Scriptura)? Someone could argue that a person's "prophetic utterance" is on par with Scripture since it is a message given by God. Grudem retorts that prophets in the NT "did not speak with authority equal to the words of Scripture,"⁶ citing Acts 21:4; 21:10-11, cf. Acts 21:3; 22:29, 32. He notes that Paul instructs the church not to "put out the Spirit's fire", and not to "treat prophecies with contempt" (1 Thess. 5:19-22 TNIV). He then comments:

If the Thessalonians had thought that prophecy equaled God's Word in authority, he never would have had to tell the Thessalonians not to despise it -- they "received" and "accepted" God's Word "with joy from the Holy Spirit" (1 Thess. 1:6; 2:13; cf. 4:15). But when Paul tells them to "test everything," it must include at least the prophecies he mentioned in the previous phrase. He implies that prophecies contain some things that are good and some things that are not good when he encourages them to "hold fast what is good." This is something that never could have been said of the words of an Old Testament prophet or of the authoritative teachings of a New Testament apostle.⁷

Paul informs the Corinthian believers: "Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets" (1 Cor. 14:29-33 TNIV). Concerning Paul's admonition, that the others should evaluate what is said (1 Cor. 14:29), Grudem responds:

We cannot imagine that an Old Testament prophet like Isaiah would have said, "Listen to what I say and weigh what is said -- sort the good from the bad, what you accept from what you should not accept"! If prophecy had absolute divine authority, it would be sin to do this. But here Paul commands that it be done, suggesting that New Testament prophecy did not have the authority of God's very words.⁸

If the one gifted with prophetic utterance does not speak in accordance with Scripture, then his or her words are not to be heeded; God's Word has final authority. Sola Scriptura teaches that only Scripture contains infallible and inerrant authority for the Christian faith, and only the gospel message of Scripture contains the necessary knowledge for one's salvation. The apostle John writes: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1 TNIV). Here believers are commanded not to believe every prophetic voice heard in the church.

By heeding these warnings, believers will avoid much confusion. Grudem states: "Prophecies in the church today should be considered merely human words, not God's words, and not equal to God's words in authority."⁹ He notes that God could bring something to mind by way of revelation without the utterance being His own words. The one who prophesies is putting into words what is initiated by the Spirit of God into his or her thoughts. In this manner, one could never claim one's message to be like the Old Testament "thus saith the Lord."

Pentecostals, however, admit that prophecies in the church today are "gifts of inspired utterance."¹⁰ They admit that prophecy is "a special gift that enables a believer to bring a word or revelation [something previously unknown, but not new doctrine] directly from God under the impulse of the Holy Spirit."¹¹ In this manner, one claims that his or her message is a NT "thus saith the Lord." Some critics wonder how God's message given through a prophetic utterance today is not considered on par with His established Word -- the Bible.

Still, Pentecostals maintain that a Spirit-inspired utterance will always confirm the Word of Truth, i.e. Scripture. Hence Scripture is still viewed as the final authority for doctrine and practice. Believers are not to "assume that prophecy is an infallible message, as there can be a sincere mixture of the human messenger in the message, or there can be an insincere false prophecy meant to impress others or deceive (1 John 4:1)."¹² No author of Scripture ever explicitly described "the church actively seeking revelation or direction from those claiming to be prophets. Prophecy was given to the church when God initiated the message (1 Cor. 12:11; 2 Pet. 1:21)"¹³

Arminius, commenting on the divine authority of the Word of God, writes:

The authority of any word or writing whatsoever depends upon its author, as the word "authority" indicates; and it is just as great as the veracity and the power, that is, the authentia, of the author. But God is of infallible veracity, and is neither capable of deceiving nor of being deceived; and of irrefragable power, that is, supreme over the creatures. If, therefore, He is the Author of Scripture, its authority is totally dependent on Him alone.¹⁴

The spiritual gift of prophecy was never intended to supplant the revealed Word of God. Arminius concludes that "no new inspiration, after that to the apostles, will be necessary to salvation; and that what is said about the distinct periods of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with regard to a revelation, is a pure invention of the human brain."¹⁵

¹ Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 429.

² Ibid.

³ Wayne A. Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, ed. Jeff Purswell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 408.

⁴ Life in the Spirit New Testament Commentary, eds. French L. Arrington and Roger Stronstad (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 871.

⁵ Millard J. Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, second edition, ed. L. Arnold Hustad (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 284.

⁶ Grudem, 410.

⁷ Ibid., 411.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Ibid., 412.

¹⁰ Life in the Spirit New Testament Commentary, 871.

¹¹ Life in the Spirit Study Bible, eds. Donald C. Stamps and John Wesley Adams (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 1799.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ James Arminius, "Twenty-Five Public Disputations: Disputation I. On the Authority and Certainty of the Sacred Scriptures," in The Works of Arminius, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:80.

¹⁵ Ibid., 96.

SATURDAY DEVOTION: CHARLES FINNEY: CLEARING UP MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION

Sanctification is a term of frequent use in the Bible. Its simple and primary meaning is a state of consecration to God. To sanctify is to set apart to a holy use -- to consecrate a thing to the service of God. . . .

Sanctification, as a state differing from a holy act, is a standing, ultimate intention, and exactly synonymous or identical with a state of obedience, or conformity to the law of God. . . . Sanctification, then, is nothing more nor less than entire obedience, for the time being, to the moral law. . . .

Sanctification may be entire in two senses: (1.) In the sense of present, full obedience, or entire consecration to God; and (2.) In the sense of continued, abiding consecration or obedience to God. Entire sanctification, when the terms are used in this sense, consists in being established, confirmed, preserved, continued in a state of sanctification or of entire consecration to God.

In this discussion, then, I shall use the term entire sanctification to designate a state of confirmed, and entire consecration of body, soul, and spirit, or of the whole being to God -- confirmed, not in the sense:

(1.) That a soul entirely sanctified cannot sin, but that as a matter of fact, he does not [by practice], and will not [intentionally wills not to] sin.

(2.) Nor do I use the term entire sanctification as implying that the entirely sanctified soul is in no such danger of sinning as to need the thorough use and application of all the means of grace to prevent him from sinning, and to secure his continued sanctification.

(3.) Nor, do I mean by entire sanctification, a state in which there will be no further struggle or warfare with temptation, or in which the Christian warfare will cease. This certainly did not cease in Christ to the end of life, nor will it with any being in the flesh.

(4.) Nor do I use the term as implying a state in which no further progress in holiness is possible. No such state is, or ever will be, possible to any creature, for the plain reason, that all creatures must increase in knowledge; and increase of knowledge implies increase of holiness in a holy being. The saints will doubtless grow in grace or holiness to all eternity.

(5.) Nor do I mean by the term entire sanctification, that the entirely sanctified soul will no longer need the continual grace and indwelling Spirit of Christ to preserve it from sin, and to secure its continuance in a state of consecration to God. . . .

But since entire sanctification, as I understand the term, is identical with entire and continued obedience to the law of God, and since I have in lectures on moral government fully shown what is not, and what is, implied in full obedience to the law of God, to avoid much repetition in this place, I must refer you to what I have there said upon the topics just named.

Charles G. Finney, Finney's Systematic Theology, eds. Dennis Carroll, Bill Nicely and L. G. Parkhurst, Jr. (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1994), 379-81. Also, Arminius quotes Augustine as insisting: "Pelagius disputes correctly, that they confess it not to be impossible, by the very circumstance of either many or all persons wishing to do it [perfectly to fulfill the law of God]; but let him confess whence it is possible [by the grace of God and the will of man], and peace is instantly established." James Arminius, "Apologies Against Thirty-One Theological Articles: Article XXIX (IX)," in The Works of Arminius, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Baker Book House, 1996), 2:55-56.

AN EXAMINATION OF TULIP THEOLOGY: "P" FOR PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

Finally, the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, representative of the fifth letter in the acronym TULIP, teaches that "all those who are truly born again will be kept by God's power and will persevere as Christians until the end of their lives, and that only those who persevere until the end have been truly born again."¹ This doctrine is not, however, unique to TULIP theology or Calvinism, generally speaking, for many who call themselves "Arminian" also hold to this doctrine, even though historically Arminians did not.

The doctrine of Perseverance is not always expressed by the definition given above by Wayne Grudem. Many believers, for example, hold that once a person has made the decision to trust in Christ for salvation, that initial decision and its consequence, i.e. eternal salvation, cannot be forfeited even if the person turns from Christ until the end of one's life. For those who advocate this position, a person, even if he or she turns from faith, trust or belief in Christ, will still be saved. This, however, is not the Calvinist or Reformed position (nor is it the Classical Arminian position).

Grudem's definition of perseverance, that "only those who persevere until the end have been truly born again," makes the biblical doctrine of apostasy impossible to maintain. For if only those who persevere until the end prove to have been "truly born again," then those who do not persevere were "never really saved to begin with." We are left asking, Then from what did those individuals apostatize? The Calvinist's conception is convenient, and makes for a tenacious and air-tight system, but does it have scriptural warrant?

Before endeavoring to answer that question, many want to know what Arminius taught on the doctrine of Perseverance -- after all, is he not solely responsible for introducing the doctrine of apostasy to the Church? Laurence M. Vance writes:

Mention the term Arminianism today and the first thing that comes to mind is the doctrine of conditional security; that is, the teaching that one can lose his salvation unless he does something. But as admitted by honest Calvinists, Arminius did not believe this teaching. And contrary to what Calvinists would have us believe, this is in many cases the only thing that would render an "Arminian" unorthodox.²

Arminius confesses: "Since God promises eternal life to all who believe in Christ, it is impossible for him who believes, and who knows that he believes, to doubt of his own salvation, unless he doubts of this willingness of God."³ Thus far, Arminius insists on assurance of final salvation to the one who continues to believe or trust in Jesus Christ. Such a one is not to doubt God's ability to save the person who trusts in Christ. Arminius continues: "But God does not require of him to be better assured of his individual salvation as a duty which must be performed to himself or to Christ; but it is a consequence of that promise, by which God engages to bestow eternal life on him who believes."⁴

Again, the believer should expect to receive eternal life from God. How certain can the believer be concerning final salvation? Arminius writes:

With regard to the certainty of salvation, my opinion is that it is possible for him who believes in Jesus Christ to be certain and persuaded, and, if his heart condemn him not, that he is now in reality assured that he is a son of God, and stands in the grace of Jesus Christ. Such a certainty is wrought in the mind, as well by the action of the Holy Spirit inwardly actuating the believer and by the fruits of faith -- as from his own conscience and the testimony of God's Spirit witnessing together with his conscience. I also believe that it is possible for such a person with an assured confidence in the grace of God and His mercy in Christ to depart out of this life and to appear before the throne of grace without any anxious fear or terrific dread.⁵

Arminius teaches that the believer has been granted everything which he or she needs to persevere against sin, Satan, and the world.⁶ He maintains the words of Jesus as a foundational truth on the subject: "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one" (John 10:27-30 NIV).

But did Arminius advance the notion that apostasy was impossible? He writes:

Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of Scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine which are worthy of much consideration.⁷

Vance comments: "So Arminius, rather than wresting the Scripture to prove a preconceived notion, very correctly admits that there are certain passages of Scripture which seem to teach that a man could lose his salvation."⁸ Historically, this has been held by Classical Arminian scholars such as John Wesley (1703-1791); Joseph Fletcher (1729-1782); Thomas Coke (1747-1814); Joseph Benson (1748-1821); Adam Clarke (1762-1832); Joseph Sutcliffe (1762-1856); Richard Watson (1781-1833); Samuel Wakefied (1799-1895); Amos Binney (1802-1878); Daniel Whedon (1808-1885); Miner Raymond (1811-1897); Thomas O. Summers (1812-1882); Albert Nash (1812-1900); John Miley (1813-1895); Randolph S. Foster (1820-1903); William Burt Pope (1822-1903); Daniel Steele (1824-1914); Benjamin Field (1827-1869); Joseph Beet (1840-1924); Aaron M. Hills (1848-1935); and H. Orton Wiley (1877-1961).

Believers cannot lose their salvation because they are believers -- they continually trust in Jesus Christ. In Classical Arminianism, believers do not lose their salvation merely for committing a sin (as though they need to be reborn again). The issue of genuine apostasy, in Classical Arminian (specifically Remonstrant) thought, is the rejection of faith in the only Savior for humanity: Jesus Christ. This person, the one who no longer has faith in, trusts or believes in Jesus Christ as Savior and for salvation, which in fact could be the result of living by the flesh in sin (Rom. 8:6, 12-13), loses his or her salvation. Believers do not and cannot lose their salvation. A more proper question is, Can believers turn from their belief?

Arminians who hold to the possibility of a believer becoming a non-believer are not slow at citing the warning passages in Scripture, warning the believer about falling from his or her firm position -- a position in Christ granted to the one whose faith is in Jesus Christ. Believers are encouraged to continue in their faith.

The apostle Paul writes the following to believers: "So when you, a mere human, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?" (Rom. 2:3 TNIV) These believers were condemning others for practicing wickedness -- the very wickedness that they themselves were also practicing. This warning to believers was meant to be taken seriously.

Also, Paul writes the following to believers: "Granted. But they [unbelieving Jews] were broken off [from God's olive tree -- from union with God] because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off" (Rom. 11:20-22 NIV).

This speaks volumes concerning the false conceptions of unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace as well as certain perseverance. For Paul then writes: "And if they [unbelieving Jews] do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again" (Rom. 11:23 NIV). How is it that unbelieving Jews "persist in unbelief" if God has not foreordained their persistence in unbelief? God then demonstrates that He is willing to graft them back in to the olive tree if they will believe. Romans 11 is at complete variance with every letter of the TULIP except the first one, total depravity, to which both Calvinists and Arminians adhere.

Christ Jesus Himself states the following: "If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned" (John 15:6 TNIV). Among these few witnesses for conditional perseverance, we also have the following conditional statements: Rom. 2:7; 15:4; Col. 1:23; 1 Tim. 2:15; 4:16; 2 Tim. 3:14; Heb. 2:1, 3; 3:6, 8, 15; 4:11; 6:11; 10:22, 35, 36, 38; 12:3, 5, 9, 13, 15, 16, 25; 13:8-9; James 1:25; Rev. 2:3; 14:12. Thus far the Arminian has not even had to appeal to the oft-mentioned Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-31 passages.

As mentioned in the introduction, there are many self-professed "Arminians" who do not believe a child of God can lose his or her salvation. Scripture passages such as 1 Cor. 5:5, Ephesians 1:13-14 and Jude 1 among others are used in support of their position. Of course, someone could always argue that these verses do not actually guarantee the certain salvation of anyone because elsewhere in Scripture ultimate salvation is conditioned upon grace, continued faith in Christ and perseverance. Moreover, these same "Arminians" reject irresistible grace initially in salvation, but evidently not in sanctification. Believers can be saved by their own choice to trust Christ (by the grace of God) but no longer retain the choice to reject Christ.

For some Calvinists, perseverance is not so much "of the saints" as it is "of the Holy Spirit." Hence those who persevere in the faith are being preserved in the faith by the work of the Holy Spirit. This concept is anchored in the fact that God has unconditionally elected who will be saved, and whoever will be saved will be preserved for salvation regardless.

Many "Arminians" hold this conception as well, but preservation is not necessitated by an unconditional decree of election. However, many Classical Arminians have complained that it is inconsistent for an "Arminian" to suggest that once a sinner has been born again by the Spirit of God, He irresitibly perseveres with God's child, thus concurrently preserving or keeping him or her saved. The believer is "free" to come but not "free" to go.

To say that Arminius was ambiguous on the subject is not a far stretch. He writes:

Is it possible for true believers to fall away totally and finally? Do some of them, in reality, totally and finally fall from the faith? The opinion which denies that "true believers and regenerate persons are either capable of falling away, or actually do fall away from the faith totally and finally" was never, from the times of the Apostles down to the present day, accounted by the Church as a [universal] verity: Neither has that which affirms the contrary ever been reckoned as an heretical opinion; nay, that which affirms it possible for believers to fall away from the faith has always had more supporters in the Church of Christ than that which denies its possibility or its actually occurring.⁹

Neither the orthodoxy of Calvinists or "Arminians" who hold to the doctrine of Perseverance nor Arminians or Wesleyans who hold to the doctrine of Apostasy are in question whatsoever. However one addresses the warning passages in Scripture, he or she must be honest with the text, acknowledging that New Testament letters were written to believers and not to unbelievers.

Therefore, when the author of Hebrews, for example, warns believers to "pay more careful attention . . . to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away" from it (Heb. 2:1 NIV), then we need to evaluate the purpose for the warning. When he warns believers "that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God" but to "encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness" (Heb. 3:12-13 NIV), then we need to evaluate the purpose for the urging. When he addresses believers, "Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it" (Heb. 4:1 NIV), we need to ask ourselves, If certain Perseverance or Preservation is true, from the Calvinist's perspective, which is the result of being Irresistibly drawn by the Grace of regeneration, being atoned for by Christ's Limited Atonement, having been Unconditionally Elected by God from before the creation of the world, then what are these warning passages meant to accomplish?

Some Calvinists answer that the warning passages, though the threats are not real, in that the believer will not actually fail to be saved in the end, are meant to be the means by which God preserves His people. The warnings are meant to sift out those who do not truly believe. For those who do not "truly believe," the warning passages, then, serve as a means by which they "fall away" -- from what we do not know, since they allegedly never had faith to begin with.

For the people of God, the warnings are nothing more than empty threats. But why God would need to voice such threats for His unconditionally elect in the first place is beyond us! Why do not these same Calvinists just admit that the same God who "gave" His unconditionally elect the faith to believe in Christ is the same God who is still "giving" His unconditionally elect the faith to believe -- a faith which will one day be made sight? Unless of course the warning passages, taken at face value, explicitly indicate the possibility of the believer being "found to have fallen short" of entering heaven (Heb. 4:1). If this is really true, then we suppose that some sort of explanation must be given, even if inaccurately interpreted, for such truths are contrary not just to the doctrine of Perseverance but to TULIP theology itself.

¹ Wayne A. Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, ed. Jeff Purswell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 336.

² Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola: Vance Publications, 2002), 590.

³ James Arminius, "Nine Questions Exhibited for the Purpose of Obtaining an Answer from Each of the Professors of Divinity: And the Replies which James Arminius Gave to Them: With Other Nine Opposite Articles," in The Works of Arminius, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:67.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid., 1:667.

⁶ Ibid., 1:664-667.

⁷ Ibid., 1: 667.

⁸ Vance, 592.

9 Arminius, 2:725.

AN EXAMINATION OF TULIP THEOLOGY: "I" FOR IRRESISTIBLE GRACE

The doctrine of Irresistible (or Effectual) Grace, representative of the fourth letter in the acronym TULIP, was a term of derision, used by the followers of Arminius (the Remonstrants) against the Calvinists for their philosophcial theory, for it is not an exegetical truth of Scripture, that God irresistibly draws those whom He has unconditionally elected (those for whom Jesus alone died) via regeneration; hence regeneration precedes faith.

Most Calvinists admit that sinners resist the Holy Spirit; resistance is merely a result of the fall, they say. The unregenerate can do nothing but resist the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, for the Arminian to direct the Calvinist's attention to Scriptures which demonstrate that people resist the work of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51; 18:6; 2 Cor. 6:1; 2 Tim. 3:8) is an exercise in futility. Calvinists insist that all people resist the Holy Spirit because of the bondage of their wills to sin -- they are unable to believe or understand the gospel and, therefore, resist.

We believer, however, that the Calvinist is missing the key element in this argument. What are unbelievers resisting? If unbelievers are actively resisting something, what exactly are they resisting? The biblical answer is that they are resisting the work of the Holy Spirit in conviction of sin, lack of righteousness, and the judgment to come (John 16:8-11). But why would the Holy Spirit be convicting the unconditionally non-elect of sin, righteousness and judgment? If God the Father had no eternal intent on unconditionally saving the non-elect, then why does the Holy Spirit convict them? Is God not spinning His wheels, so to speak? What a lot of work for nothing!

Moreover, there is an "inward" and an "outward" call of God, Calvinists confess. And while "other traditions teach that this inward leading of the Holy Spirit may be accepted or rejected, Reformed theology insists that God's inward call is always effectual; that is, it never fails to save those who are so called."¹ Is this true?

The apostle Paul writes the following to those in Corinth: "And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain" (2 Cor. 6:1 NASB). How might one of God's unconditionally elect receive His grace in vain, or to no effect? In Calvinism, only the unconditionally elect receive God's effectual grace, which inevitably leads to salvation via regeneration. (In Calvinism, a person is then saved to faith, not by faith, as Scripture teaches.) Is Paul teaching that a person can make God's grace to no effect? If so, then Scripture is at complete variance with Calvinism.

Strictly taken, the grace of God is never said to be certain or effectual or irresistible in Scripture, but it is said to be prevenient, meaning that which precedes or comes before (cf. Eph. 2:8). Roger Olson explains:

The key distinctive doctrine of Arminianism is preveneint grace. . . . It is the powerful but resistible drawing of God that Jesus spoke about in John 6. Contrary to what some Calvinist commentators argue, the Greek word elko (e.g., John 6:44) does not have to mean "drag" or "compel" (as claimed, for example, by Calvinist theologian R. C. Sproul in Chosen by God). According to various Greek lexicons it can mean draw or attract. Arminians believe that if a person is saved, it is because God initiated the relationship and enabled the person to respond freely with repentance and faith. This prevenient grace includes at least four aspects or elements: calling, convicting, illuminating, and enabling. No person can repent, believe and be saved without the Holy Spirit's supernatural support from beginning to end. All the person does is cooperate by not resisting.²

What Sproul wants to know is why some resist and others do not, resulting in salvation, given that everyone receives the same amount of prevenient grace. Since all people are equally depraved, how is it that some do and others do not resist? Given the amount of mystery or antinomy in the Calvinist's theological system, Arminians wonder greatly why they are constrained to answer this mysterious and philosophical question. Are Classical Arminians not afforded any mystery in their system, or are only Calvinists permitted such a privilege?

I would argue strongly against the notion that all people are equally depraved, but I understand what Sproul is getting at. Though the question is valid, it is also unnecessary to answer because of the myriad answers each person who has ever rejected the gospel could give. Think about the manifold ways in which each person became a believer in Jesus Christ. Though everyone came by God's grace through the gospel and the preached Word (Rom. 1:16-17; Eph. 5:26; 1 Peter 1:23), the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11), and faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9), the actual receiving of His grace (John 1:12; Rom. 5:1-2, 17; 2 Cor. 6:1) was accomplished in the midst of various life-circumstances.

Calvinists cannot answer why God would unconditionally choose one person over and against another person; and it would be impossible to sufficiently answer such a question since no one can know the mind of God. In the same way, the Arminian cannot sufficiently answer as to why one person receives the gospel and the grace of God and another rejects the same. Nonetheless, what we find in Scripture are examples of people who received Christ's testimony and were saved, as well as those who refused Him and were condemned (cf. John 3:36; Matt. 13:1-23).

What we do not find explicitly taught in the Bible is the Calvinistic theory that a person must first be regenerated in order to receive the grace of God; nor do we find that a person must first be unconditionally elected of God, before the foundation of the world, in order to receive the grace of God. John writes: "For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ" (John 1:16-17, NASB); "For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all" (Rom. 11:32 NASB). Arminius comments:

The Remote End [or goal of the vocation of people to salvation] is the salvation of the elect and the Glory of God, in regard to which the very vocation to grace is a means ordained by God, yet through the appointment of God it is necessary to the communication of salvation (Phil. 1:6; Eph. 1:14): But the Answer by which obedience is yielded to this call is the condition which, through the appointment of God is also requisite and necessary for obtaining this end."³

Notice that, for Arminius, for anyone to receive salvation by the grace of God, he or she must yield to God's call to come to Him. This teaching comes explicitly from Scripture: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects [ἀπειθέω, not to allow one's self to be persuaded, to refuse or withhold belief, to refuse belief and obedience, not to comply with -- Heartlight] the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them" (John 3:36 TNIV). But clearly, God's desire is that sinners repent and be saved (Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11), and "God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance" (Rom. 2:4 TNIV).

What Irresistible or Effectual Grace maintains, from the Arminian's perspective, is the idea of moral irresponsibility. For how can God hold people responsible for believing on Christ Jesus for salvation when it is God who allegedly unconditionally elects who will and who will not believe in Christ by decree? This faulty and deceptive view of God communicates to a lost world that God loves them and desires their salvation (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; cf. Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11), yet has hoodwinked them by His divine decree to only unconditionally elect some of them unto faith and salvation.

Still, He will hold them responsible at the Day of Reckoning for not trusting His Son, whom He sent into the world to, admittedly, die for their sin (John 1:29). With all humility and curiosity, I must ask my Calvinist brothers and sisters: Will you not be abashed at the Judgment Seat when, from your point of view, God will not only judge people for not doing what they were unable to do, but more importantly also judge them for what He unconditionally elected them not to do?

The doctrine of Irresistible or Effectual Grace is assumed by the logic of Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election. Limited Atonement has easily been refuted by Scripture, thereby rendering Unconditional Election unnecessary. If Unconditional Election is unnecessary, and Limited Atonement is false, then Irresistible or Effectual Grace is utterly superfluous.

¹ The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible, ed. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 1784.

² Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 159-60.

³ James Arminius, "," in The Works of Arminius, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:234.

AN EXAMINATION OF TULIP THEOLOGY: "L" FOR LIMITED ATONEMENT

The doctrine of Limited Atonement, the third letter representative in the acronym TULIP, is a logical construct derived from the a priori of Unconditional Election. There is no more amiable way of stating it. The speculative assumption inherent in the doctrine is not necessarily the limit or scope of the atonement, but its intent. The overarching implication in the doctrine of Limited Atonement, as stated by Calvinist Lorraine Boettner, is as follows:

These two doctrines [Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement] must stand or fall together. We cannot logically accept one and reject the other. If God has elected some and not others to eternal life, then plainly the primary purpose of Christ's work was to redeem the elect.
It is in this truth of limited atonement that the doctrine of sovereign election (and, in fact, sovereign predestination with its two aspects of election and reprobation) comes into focus.¹

His statement certainly accounts for the calling of Amyraldianism by some seventeenth-century Calvinists a heresy. For from the five-point Calvinist's point of view (i.e. TULIP theology), how can one hold to Unconditional Election and reject Limited Atonement, in its intent? As I stated in the introduction, the intent of the atonement is what is in view here.

Moreover, if Boettner is correct, in that both doctrines "stand or fall together," then for the sake of consistency, if Limited Atonement is found to be false, then so is Unconditional Election.

What was God's intention concerning the atonement of His Son in relation to His creatures? Scripture clearly states: "In him [Jesus] was life, and that life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. . . . The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world" (John 1:4, 5, 9 TNIV). The intent and plan or purpose of the Father in sending Christ Jesus was to give light and life to everyone. That is what John wrote in Scripture: "He came to His own [the Jewish people], and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" (John 1:11-12 NASB).

God's intent was to reconcile "the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them" (2 Cor. 5:19 NASB). However, this reconciliation is not automatic. Reconciliation, redemption, justification, regeneration, salvation -- these things happen to no one automatically; they are hinged upon the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, many in the West today believe that because Christ has come, died on the Cross and been resurrected from the dead, all people are now going to be saved from hell. That is not true. The reconciliation of which Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians is conditioned upon faith in and union with Christ Jesus. Since all people, being initially "in Adam" (1 Cor. 15:22), are separated from God because of their sins (Eph. 2:1; Isa. 59:2) and are under the wrath of God (John 3:36; Eph. 2:3), all people need to be reconciled back to God. Reconciliation happens by faith in Christ Jesus. And since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50), all people need to be born again in order to enter heaven (John 3:1-8). This also happens by faith in Christ Jesus.

Every Christian, whether Calvinist, Arminian, or what have you, limits the atonement to some extent because we are not Universalists; we do not believe that everyone will be saved in the end (Matt. 7:21-23; Rev. 20:11-15). However, Arminians in particular believe that the intention of God was to genuinely offer His Son as a ransom for all people -- everyone ever to be born into the world. Why do we believe this? We believe this because the Bible explicitly teaches this: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time" (1 Tim. 2:5-6 TNIV; cf. Matt. 20:18; Mk. 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:3-4; 4:10; Titus 2:11).

That the Bible teaches a general atonement for all people is not hidden in a few obscure texts; it is the testimony of the New Testament. Terry L. Miethe comments: "The atonement is that aspect of the work of Christ, particularly his death, that makes possible the restoration of fellowship between God and humankind."² His use of the phrase "makes possible" is why many accuse Arminianism as philosophically maintaining possible Universalism; while Arminians are merely taking Scripture at face value. I would ask, Possible from whose perspective? Since God knows all things possible, then there is no such thing as possible Universalism.

But a Calvinist may argue, If God did not unconditionally elect whom He intended to save, then how could He be aboslutely sure that anyone would actually receive His Son, so as to be saved? That question, however, is an assault on God's exhaustive knowledge of all things. Open Theists ask such questions. Let us ask the Calvinist this question: Are you suggesting that God cannot be sure of anyone actually receiving His Son unless He first unconditionally elected to save them? Are you willing to limit God by your theory?

Someone else will argue that if Jesus died on behalf of everyone, then it would be unfair of God to send anyone to hell, because Christ already "paid the price" for their sin -- such would be a double payment. No, it would not be a double payment whatsoever because Christ's atonement is not automatically applied to anyone, as stated already. Such a conception is predicated upon the doctrine of Unconditional Election. Perhaps Boettner was right: the two rise and fall together. If so, then it appears that Unconditional Election is equally in error as is Limited Atonement.

A person is justified by faith in Jesus Christ -- trust that He and He alone can save a sinner from his or her sin (Rom. 1:17; 3:22, 25, 28; 4:13; 5:1, 2; 9:30). Therefore, since justification is granted through faith alone (cf. Rom. 4:3), then it is not an automatic result of Christ's atonement. As John stated: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects (ἀπειθέω, not to allow one's self to be persuaded, to refuse or withhold belief, to refuse belief and obedience, not to comply with -- Heartlight) the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them" (John 3.36 TNIV). There is no double payment. Again, Miethe explains:

There is certainly no logical contradiction in saying that Jesus' suffering and death were universal [in quality], but that free, responsible individuals have to accept his free gift [quantity]. There is no double payment! Only Jesus could pay the penalty for anyone or everyone, but each individual must still accept that free gift. . . .
It is clear in the Bible that Christ's death is universal in sufficiency and intention, but it is limited in its application.³

The theory of Limited Atonement is, relatively, a novel or new teaching. Throughout Church history, the fathers were rather unanimous on an understanding of unlimited or general atonement. Besides Reformed giants such as Luther, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Latimer, Cranmer, and Coverdale, we also have the explicit witnesses of Clement of Alexandria, Eusebuis, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Richard Hocker, James Arminius, James Ussher, Richard Baxter, John Bunyan, John Newton, John and Charles Wesley, Alfred Edersheim, B. F. Westcott, J. B. Lightfoot, Augustus H. Strong, A. T. Robertson, and many others who taught an unlimited or general atonement of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin, offered to the whole world (John 1:29), conditioned upon faith in Him (Rom. 3:21-26).

Because the latter could be viewed as an exercise in stacking the deck against the speculative philosophy of Limited Atonement, the following are just a few passages of scriptures which explicitly prove unequivocally that Christ Jesus died for, in the stead of, all people without distinction: John 18:14; Rom. 5:6, 8; 14:9, 15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15; 1 Thess. 5:10. Some people wrest these verses to erroneously imply that Christ died only for those whom God foreordained to save, i.e. the elect. The burden of proof, of course, remains theirs to show from Scripture why they are correct. But not even our Lexicons will grant them warrant for proof, to say nothing of Scripture.

Question: Why does God command all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30)? Answer: Because "He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed" (Acts. 17.31 NASB). What five-point Calvinists teach (those who adhere to TULIP theology) is that God has unconditionally chosen to save some from among humanity by irresistibly drawing them to Himself, justifying them by granting them faith in Christ and by applying His Son's sacrifice for their sins. This was always and only His intent.

The problem with these theories and interpretations is that at the Judgment, God will knowingly assign unbelievers to an eternal hell, having never the intention to save, grace, atone, or aid any one of them. In effect, God says: "I have said in My Word that I love you all, but I did not unconditionally elect to save you all. I have said in My Word that I sent My Son into the world to save sinners, but I had no intention of unconditionally saving or atoning you all." But is that the message one finds in the New Testament? Actually, from a plain reading of the Text, one finds the direct opposite: "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29 NASB)

While some find it easy to contort God's word to make it conform to their theological system, we should find our comfort in taking the simple words contained in Scripture for what they mean naturally. So, when we read in Scripture that Christ died for all people, it should not negatively effect our theological system whatsoever -- we should simply submit to its teaching that Christ did in fact die on behalf of all people, realizing that only those who trust in Christ shall be atoned and saved. As Paul clearly writes: "one died for all, therefore all died" (2 Cor. 5:14 NASB). If all are dead in sins (Eph. 2:1), then Christ died for all (2 Cor. 5:14-15).

I. Howard Marshall recalls the following story:

One of my friends, for whose theological integrity and acumen I have the highest regard, said that, while he could honestly say to any sinner or group of sinners, "God loves you" (John 3.16), he could not say to them, "Christ died for you," since on his view Christ died only for the elect and he could not be sure that his audience belonged to the group of the elect.⁴

That is quite a sad testimonial. Interestingly enough, neither the apostle Paul nor any other NT author had a problem stating to all people that Christ had died for all people. The only persons having a problem with such a statement seem to be five-point Calvinists. Given that Scripture itself is opposed to the theory of Unlimited Atonement in its intent, according to Calvinist Lorraine Boettner, that would mean that Unconditional Election is also a theological error. This being the case, then the next letter representative in the TULIP acronym, the "I," is rendered entirely unnecessary.

¹ Quoted from Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola: Vance Publications, 2002), 406. See Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 151.

² Terry L. Miethe, "The Universal Power of the Atonement," in The Grace of God and the Will of Man, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), 71.

³ Ibid., 74-75.

⁴ I. Howard Marshall, "Universal Grace and Atonement in the Pastoral Epistles," in The Grace of God and the Will of Man, 51.