The Broken Three-Legged Stool of Arminianism

 

To my mind, if Arminianism were to have any theological credibility, that credibility depends on three legs or strands of thought. These are the following:

• That prevenient grace exists 
• That human beings have libertarian free will
• That part of God's sovereignty involved giving up some sovereignty to give human beings the power to make important decisions according to their libertarian free will.

If any one of these three legs is broken, the Arminian stool is unstable. In my opinion all three legs fail biblically and theologically. 

For any readers unsure of what some of these key terms mean, I have linked to definitions on their first occurence in this piece.

Now, let's look at why each leg of the three-legged stool fails biblically and theologically.

The Myth of Prevenient Grace

The first leg of the stool is that there is such a thing as prevenient grace in the Arminian sense. This is very necessary for Arminians because all evangelical Christians must acknowledge that fallen human beings are unable to come to faith in Christ without divine help. Such are the effects of sin on us. Indeed reputable Arminians, just like Calvinists, acknowledge the truth of total depravity—that every part of us, mind, body, emotions, thoughts and will, are all corrupted by sin.

 Many verses allude to the truth of human inability. Here are a few:

• "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Romans 3:10-12)
• "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:7-8)
• "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2:1-3)
• "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)
• "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." (John 6:44a)
• "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5)
• "The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Genesis 8:21)   
• "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)
• "No one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:3) 

Given this, how do we explain those who do come to saving faith and are seeking God and desiring to do good? The Calvinist has a simple answer—God's irresistible grace operating on the elect. In this sense the idea of prevenient or enabling grace is obviously true and necessary. God's grace must operate on the sinner before he or she can come to saving faith. The Calvinist acknowledges this obviously, but sees this as applying only to the elect, in whom such grace is always and irresistibly saving.

But the Arminian has a problem. How does the Arminian attempt to explain how anyone comes to faith given their view that what God wants and does for believers is the same as what he does for unbelievers? And there is no distinction as far as God's attitudes and actions go between how he acts on the elect and the non-elect (in Arminian terms between how he acts for those who believe and those who don't).

The Arminian answer is the concept of "prevenient grace"—a grace of God that applies to everyone, overcomes man's hostility and deadness in sin, and enables anyone to come to faith in Christ or reject Christ.

The question is where is a concept of a grace of God that overcomes sinfulness and enables everyone to believe or not as they will?

The biblical evidence for such a massively important doctrine for the whole Arminian system is scant at best. Simply put, there are no verses that clearly teach such a doctrine as Arminian prevenient grace. There are no verse that combined clearly teach it either. At best—I repeat, at best—there are a handful of verses that might, if read in a certain way, perhaps point to something like prevenient grace, but in no case do those verse have to be read that way and I would argue are better read in other ways.

Let's look at those verses now.

Some Arminians cite John 6:44, which we've already looked at: ""No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." (John 6:44a).

This verse cannot mean what Arminian prevenient grace needs it to mean, for the whole verse reads: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

The grace operating here to enable a sinner to come is saving and effectual. All to whom it applies are raised up on the last day (clearly in context raised to salvation) and so this grace does not apply to those who reject it.

Other verses:

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people" (Titus 2:11)

In context this clearly means "all kinds of people" and not everyone without exception who ever lived. If it meant that, the verse teaches universalism in salvation and not just prevenient grace. The whole passage in Titus 2:1-11 talks about various different groups of people and this is a much more natural reading of verse 11.

"The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world." (John 1:9)

Although possibly the strongest support that can be drummed up for prevenient grace, this verse does not mention grace at all. The Arminian interpretation required "which enlightens everyone" to be considerably expanded to mean "a would-be saving grace that undoes total depravity and enables everyone to respond positively to the gospel".

What the verse actually refers to is "enlightening" or bringing light to everyone. This can equally well simply mean bring the light of truth and the light of judgment to humanity's dark deeds of sin. Given the context and the following verses about Christ being rejected as opposed to accepted because of this enlightening, it seems a massive stretch to draw the whole Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace from this verse.

"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." (John 12:32).

Another verse Arminians latch onto as supposedly teaching their concept of prevenient grace. I would suggest that "all people" or "all men" here is not referring to everyone without exception, but everyone without distinction as is common in John's writings. Here Jesus is saying that while in his earthly ministry his mission was within the Jewish nation, after his death and resurrection, his mission will expand to include every nation—"all people".

Obviously the Calvinist vs Arminian debate has been raging for nearly 400 years and this post is not going to resolve it. But in my view, the first leg of the Arminian stool rests on very little biblical evidence and I consider it broken because the Bible does not teach prevenient grace in the Arminian sense anywhere.

The Myth of Libertarian Free Will

The second leg that Arminianism depends on is libertarian free will.

As reasonable definiton of libertarian free will is the human being's power to choose between more than one possibility in any situation in which such freedom pertains. It means that where libertarian free will exists, and a choice is before a person, all the antecedent factors are insufficient to determine the choice that will be made. In other words, when a person is faced with the choice to do A or not to do A (A can be any action), everything in that person—his character, his desires, his needs, his history, his genetics, his past and current environments, none of that is sufficient to account for whether the person will choose A or not-A.

This is in contrast with what is called compatibilist free will in Reformed theology. According to compatibilist free will, we are free if our choice is (a) what we want to do, (b) not forced or coerced by anything external to us, and (c) could had been otherwise if we had wanted to do otherwise. However, not that compatibilist free will acknowledges that our will (which Jonathan Edwards defined as "the mind choosing") is according to our strongest desire in any given situation. Most importantly, compatibilist free will recognises that many factors, such as character, needs, history, environment, genetics, and so forth, form a matrix according to which our strongest desire in any situation can be arrived at by a combination of all these factors.

To put it more simply, according to compatibilist free will, our free choices are compatible with God's decree because he is able to control the many factors that lead to what our strongest desire will be in any situation and upon the basis of which we will make our choices. But libertarian free will denies this. 

Essentially, since no prior factor or combination of factors can lead to a person having a desire that will determine their choice, libertarian free will ends up being unable to explain for why a person chooses option A over option B in any situation. In fact, libertarian free will requires that exactly the same facts and factors that led a person to choose option A could just as easily have preceded the person choosing option B. The choice ultimately ends up being not because of anything, but because the person chose it, with no decisive explanatory reason. Otherwise, according to libertarians, the choice was not free. This in itself is problematic.

More significantly though, from a theological and biblical point of view, if we have libertarian free will, not even God can determine what our choices will be. Once he gives the gift of libertarian freedom, he simply has to accept what we choose. He can warn, threaten, persuade, woo, entice, and forth, but he cannot make us do any he decrees us to do, at least not if the choice is to be regarded as a free choice, or a choice made according to our free will.

The question we must ask is whether this is how the Bible speaks of human choices or not? Certainly, the Bible is full of  people being given choices and making choices. That much can scarcely be disputed:

• Perhaps most significantly for humanity, Adam and Eve in the Garden were given the choice of obedience or disobedience in eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2-3) and chose disobedience.
• "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them." (Deuteronomy 30:19-20)
• "Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:14-15)
• " No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." (1 Corinthians 10:13)

The problem is that whenever the Bible mentions choices or decisions or options, the Arminians sees this as proving libertarian free will, but it does no such thing. All it shows is that people make choices, real choices. In no way do any of these passages mean that the choices cannot be determined by prior factors as in compatibilist free will.

More important for libertarian free will is the fact that on a number of occasions the Bible is clear that people's free choices (free in the compatibilist sense of doing what we want to do) can be determined by God as to how the choices should go. This is perfectly in line with compatibilist free will but devastating to the concept of libertarian free will. 

Consider the following verses, each easily explained on compatibilist free will principles and impossible from a libertarian free will standpoint (except perhaps in Molinism where God uses foreknowledge to control libertarian free choices). The problems with Molinism I have addressed before here and here. Our present discussion concerns Arminianism as a whole.

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." (Genesis 50:20)

Here it is clear that though Joseph's brothers had evil intent towards him in selling him into slavery—and that choice was obviously freely made by them—nevertheless, they were carrying out the very purpose and intention of God which would ultimately lead to Joseph coming to power in Egypt and even saving the very brothers who had acted against him.

"And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians; and when you go, you shall not go empty, but each woman shall ask of her neighbour, and any woman who lives in her house, for silver and gold jewellery, and for clothing. You shall put them on your sons and on your daughters. So you shall plunder the Egyptians." (Exodus 3:21-22)

Another passage that points strongly towards comptaibilist free will. It seems clear enough that the Egyptian women gave gifts to the Israelite woman freely. But it could not have been libertarian free will because God says that he "will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians." He is able to ensure the Egyptians will have a favourable attitude, yet act freely. This is precisely what compatibilist free will allows for, but libertarian free will could not guarantee.

"But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day." (Deuteronomy 2:30)

Here instead of making someone willing to do something, God makes someone's heart obstinate. Yet Sihon was in no sense coerced. He did what he wanted to do, which was at the same time, what God wanted him to do. 

"And they kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days with joy, for the Lord had made them joyful and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel." (Ezra 6:22)

In this verse, not only does it say the Lord made his people joyful, but that he was able to "turn the heart of the king of Assyria". This is not something God is supposed to be able to do according to libertarian free will. 

"A man’s heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps." (Proverbs 16:9, NKJV).

"The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will." (Proverbs 21:1)

These two verses from Proverbs both indicate God ability to direct and turn our plans and decisions to what he wants us to do, even in the case of the king—the most powerful man in a nation in the ancient world.

"This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." (Acts 2:23) 

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." (Acts 4:27-28) 

Finally, we look at these two verses in Acts concerning the crucifixion of Jesus. Both verses make the point that the crucifixion took place according to God's plan and purpose, yet those human agents involved in it—the Jewish authorities, the Romans, Pilate and Herod—all acted to do what they wanted and are responsible for their wicked and lawless deeds. 

There point is made. Scripture clearly teaches that human beings act freely when they do what they want to do, and yet God is able to control human desires in order to achieve his own purposes. 

The fact is that God operates at a higher level than anything within the created order. He is able to exercise his sovereignty not just to influence but to determine human choices and actions that, nevertheless, remain free. Given this, the concept of libertarian free will, in which human beings act autonomously, outside of divine control must be adjudged unbiblical. Accordingly, the bedrock doctrine of Arminianism, that human beings have libertarian free will is likewise unbiblical and so two legs of the Arminian stool are either broken or mere human fancies.

The Myth That God's Gives Up Sovereignty to Human Choices

The third leg that Arminianism requires is this idea that though it is acknowledged that God is sovereign, apparently he has sovereignly decided to give up being sovereign over certain things and placed them under the control of human free will.

This is one of the cleverest and most necessary moves that Arminian theologian have to make. The biblical evidence for God's sovereignty and ability to do whatever he desires and pleases to do is overwhelming.

A. W. Tozer famously wrote in The Knowledge of the Holy: 

God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so. 

Although this is a clever argument, there is a huge problem with it. Despite how it sounds, this is actually a denial of God's sovereignty as understood by the biblical authors. Can you really imagine Isaiah or Paul accepting that God can somehow give up the very sovereignty that makes him the God of the Bible?

"For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose." (Isaiah 46:9-10)

"For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever. Amen." (Romans 11:36) 

No, this is a desperation move by the Arminians and it fails for lack of biblical evidence.  The Bible nowhere states that God uses his sovereignty in this way, to effectively give up his own sovereignty to the creature.

Given what the Bible does clearly state about how human free choices and human responsibility are compatible with God's sovereign control over all things, this last leg of the Arminian stool simply cannot bear the weight that would need to be placed on it. After all, God "works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11), including the free choices of human beings, for which we will ultimately be held responsible.

The Arminian stool is thus left without any legs and I would argue therefore must be rejected by anyone seeking to be guided by Scripture alone and in total (sola scriptura and tota scriptura) and not by human tradition or philosophy. 

Amyraldianism, Marrow Theology and Free Offer of the Gospel

I think it was the Princeton theologian, A. A. Hodge, who said that the free offer of the gospel was the point where the opponents of Calvinism have rightly focused their main attack. 

The reason for this is obvious. The distinctive of Reformed theology is particularism. Reformed theology teaches that God chooses some people for salvation, not everyone (unconditional election), that Christ died with the intention of saving only the elect and not everyone (limited atonement/particular redemption), and that God irresistibly or effectually calls only some by his grace to receive saving faith.

The problem with this particularism, true to Scripture though it is, is that it would seem to be in conflict with other Scriptures that teach that, at a minimum, the gospel call is to be made to all indiscriminately—elect and non-elect alike, and that there would seem to be some sense in which God wishes or desires everyone to heed the gospel invitiation and be saved.

This apparent tension has been addressed in numerous ways by theologians.

The Arminians address it by denying the Reformed truths of unconditional election, particular redemption and irresistible grace and thereby fall outside the sphere of Reformed theology. Since they maintain a sincere gospel offer to all, they conclude that there is no sovereign decree choosing some for salvation and not others, that Christ's death was an attempted atonement for everyone, and that God's grace tries to draw all the salvation. The definining element between the saved and the lost therefore becomes the human free will, the choice to believe or not.

At the other extreme, Hyper-Calvinism, addresses the tension by denying that the free offer of the gospel is for all, elect and non-elect alike. Instead, in one way or another, the Hyper-Calvinist restricts the gospel offer to the elect only.

Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism are the most extreme ways of meeting the apparent tension between Reformed theology's particularism of salvation for the elect alone and a free offer of the gospel for everyone. In a sense, both are rationalistic solutions to the apparent inconsistency of insising that both are true. They solve the "problem" by denying one side or the other in the tension.

Within the broad sweep of Reformed theology, there have been other attempts to explain or handle this tension. Two are of special interest, and in this author's view, one is deeply problematic, while the other is in harmony with the Reformed confessions.

Amyraldianism 

Amyraldianism is a deformed type of Reformed theology, named after a French theologian, Moise Amyraut, who taught at Saumur in the 17th century. Sometimes misleadingly called "Four Point Calvinism," Amyraldianism attempts to "soften" Reformed orthodoxy in the doctrines of unconditional election and especially particular redemption. 

First, as regards the doctirne of God's decree, Amyraldians suggest that there is a twofold aspect to the decree, whereby God first decreed hypothetically to save everyone without exception on the condition of faith in Christ, then recognising this would actually save none, God decreed to save the elect unconditionally or absolutely.

Second, Amyraldians hold to an unlimited atonement (i.e. that Christ's death was intended to make a universal provision for the salvation of all (in accord with the first decree) and it is only the application of salvation that is for the elect. 

Obviously, this view is at odds with orthodox Reformed theology, although it does hold to a form of uncondtional electon by adding a former conditional decree to save all and making the atonement universal. 

Amyraldianism is a kind of unstable half-way house between Calvinism and Arminianism and contrary to the Westminster Confession and the Canons of Dort, which know nothing of a hypothetical decree to save all and teach that Christ's death was intended only to save the elect.

The seeming rationale behind Amyraldianism is to make a genuine free offer of salvation possible to all because the atonement is viewed as made by Christ for all without exception. But as we will see, it is perfectly possible to hold to particular redemption and make a full and free offer of the gospel to sinners, as the Marrow Men demonstrated in Scotland in the 18th century.

Marrow Theology 

The famous Marrow Controversy in the Church of Scotland of the early 18th century touches on some of the same issues in theology. Named after a Purtian book, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (1645) by Edward Fisher, it split theological opinion in the Scottish Presbyterian church. From my perspective, I would tend to side with the Marrow Men and against their opponents. 

They were right to oppose the legalism and preparationism found in the Church of Scotland of the day. They were right to insist on the distinction between law and gospel. And they were right to preach the free offer of the gospel to all sinners. They did so while remaining orthodox, five point Calvinists.

However, the Marrow theology did introduce what A. A. Hodge termed some 'novelties' into Reformed theology and these are not beyond criticism. In particular, the Marrow theology can be said to have introduced a kind of twofold reference in the atonement, making it both a general gift to all humanity as well as particular gift to save only the elect. Such confusion is not helpful and could be seen as watering down the particularism of Dort and the Westminster Confession. 

The Marrow approach to the free offer in Fisher's book, later endorsed by the likes of Thomas Boston and the Erskine brothers, can be summarised in two well-known phrases in the Marrow that I would focus on in this regard. Fisher wrote:

The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind, that whosoever of them all shall believe in his Son shall not perish, but have eternal life.

The Marrow Men and Fisher used John 3:16 to support this view. Most Reformed theologians prior to this viewed the love of God in John 3:16 has God's saving love, lavished only on God's elect. The Marrow Men instead saw the love God is said to have for the world as being less than the saving, electing love that leads to the savlation of all the elect. The Marrow Men saw instead that the love of John 3:16 was genuinely for all sinners, and the giving of Christ was as God's appointed Saviour for mankind, offered to all who believe. 

A similar view, that the love of God for the world in John 3:16 extends to everyone, would appear to be the majority view among contemporary Reformed theologians. 

The old view, of the likes of John Owen and Francis Turretin that the 'world' in John 3:16 means Gentiles and Jews—everyone without distinction rather than everyone without exception, and with some kind of reference to the elect of all nations—now appears to be the minority view among Calvinists. 

Along similar lines is the second famous (or infamous) quotation from the Marrow:

Go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him, Christ is dead for him; and if he will take him, and accept of his righteousness, he shall have him.

The Marrow Men believed in particular redemption, that Christ died with the intention of saving only the elect. Yet alongside this, they accepted the rather strange language (not found in Scripture) that Christ is dead for all sinners who hear the gospel. So Christ did not die for all, but Christ is dead for all, by which they meant that not only was the message of Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23; 2:2) was to be preached to all sinners in the free offer, but that God has a non-saving kind of love in the realm of salvation for al sinners without exception.

As with the "deed of gift and grant" language, it seems clear—at least in Boston's reading of the Marrow that the phrase means no more than that when the gospel offer is preached, the question is not whether a person is elect so that they know if the atonement was made for them, but rather that they know they are a sinner and that if they come to faith in Christ they will be saved no matter what they have done. That's what was meant by "Christ is dead" for sinners.

The trouble is that the Marrow theology comes perilously close to a kind of Amyralianism of its own. In other words, in teaching that there is in the gift of Christ for the world a divine intent (albeit a non-efficacious intent) not merely to save elect sinners, but to save all sinners.

In is excellent work on The Atonement, A. A. Hodge was critical of these aspects of the Marrow Men's theology. He found fault in what he calls a "double reference" in the Marrow doctrine of the atonement. Some of the language used in the Fisher's book can only be called misleading at best and simply in error at worst. Here I'm thinking of a phrase used that "Christ has taken upon himself the sins of all men". As a Calvinist, I do not believe that is true. While it is true that the atonement was of infinite value and sufficient to atone for all the sins of all humanity, it is also true, as the Westminster Confessions teaches that "Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only" (WCF 3.6).

Hodge was also critical of some of the terminology used. Although accepting that Thomas Boston and the other leading Marrow Men stayed within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy, Hodge was also clear that some of the Marrow language was not helpful or felicitous.

He wrote: "All their forms of expression were confused and their laborious distinctions utterly profitless. What is the significancy of making a special head of that 'giving love' which makes an actual grant of salvation upon conditions known to be absolutely impossible, and which makes no provision for its application, and which never intended the salvation of its objects?"

Quite.

He continues: "What real idea is signalized by the verbal distinction between the bona fide offer of the gospel to all, and the "Deed of Gift" of Christ upon which it is said to rest? What is the virtue of a 'Deed of Gift or Grant' which actually conveys nothing, and which was eternally intended to convey nothing?"

Indeed, we cannot disagree with Hodge here, nor when he maintains that God's "giving love" is "that highest and most wonderful form of love which 'spared not his own Son' [Romans 8:32] and not merely a kind of general benevolence towards the whole of humanity, even those destined not to be saved.

Hodge calls consistent Calvinists to reject any kind of double reference in the atonement, a general atonement for all on condition of faith, and a particular atonement for the elect. He recommends rejecting such "novelties" including these elements of the Marrow language.

The Free Offer of the Gospel

The final question then is what is the correct approach in Reformed theology, to warrant the full and free offer of the the gospel to all sinners? If it does not proceed from Amyralianism's hypothetical universalism nor from Marrow theology's universal deed of gift and grant of Christ to all?

The answer is that the free offer depends not on a universal atonement in one sense or the other, but on the sufficiency of the atonement, on the suitability of the atonement perfectly adapted for all sinners, on God's command and invitation expressed in the gospel offer, and in the promise made to all hearers of the gospel that if they believe in Jesus Christ they will be saved. To this we can safely add the comfort and encouragement that it is God's revealed will that he does not delight in the death of sinners, but rather desires that they would turn to him and live.

None of these require us to abandon or blur the teaching that on the cross Christ died to save his people from their sins and thereby save the world and that in doing so he fully achieved his intended aims, as John 3:17 plainly states: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him" (ESV). 

  

Refuting the "Calvinist Conundrum" of Jerry Walls

In a presentation available on YouTube, the well-known and capable Arminian philosopher, Jerry Walls, presents what he calls a "Calvinist Conundrum".

His whole presentation is available here and the relevant section for our purposes starts at 19:55 and runs through to 23:29.

Walls presents the conundrum with the following premises and conclusion:

1. God truly loves all persons

2. Truly to love someone is to desire their well being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you can.

3. The well being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.

4. God could determine all persons freely to accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.

Therefore, 5. All persons will be saved.

As Walls points out, few evangelicals will accept the fifth premise, as not all persons will be saved. Therefore, he says, one of the four premises must be wrong.

As an Arminian, his choice is simple. He rejects premise 4. For the Arminian, God cannot determine someone to freely accept a relationship with himself. 

Yet premise 4, is a key Calvinist belief (known as irresistible grace in a world where divine determinism is compatible with human free will).

So, says Walls, the Calvinist must reject one of premises 1-3.

In my view, Jerry Walls's conundrum fails because his conclusion 5 does not logically follow from the first four premises.

There is logical leap that he makes here, which is unwarranted. 

Let's look at the first three premises again and then suggest a logical conclusion based on those premises first, before we come to Walls's fourth premise.

1. God truly loves all persons

2. Truly to love someone is to desire their well being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you can.

3. The well being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.

Therefore, 4A. God truly has a desire to save everyone.

Many Calvinists would agree with 4A. Those who don't would likely question either 1 or 2 (i.e. either God does not love everyone or that God can truly love someone but not desire their wellbeing in a saving sense).

Now, if we take our new first conclusion along with Wall's fourth premise (we will call this 4B) we have this:

4A. God truly has a desire to save everyone. 

4B. God could determine all persons freely to accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.

I believe it is clear that Walls's conclusion does not follow logically from 4A and 4B:

Therefore, 5. All persons will be saved. 

For Wall's conclusion to be valid, it rests on a hidden premise. The necessary hidden premise would be this:

4C. God must fulfil any desire he has if he is capable of doing so.

Only if 4C is true would Walls's conclusion 5 be valid. However, it is precisely this hidden assumption that Calvinists reject. For it is that this point precisely that God's sovereignty comes into the equation. God has the right to choose which of his desires he acts on, or rather decides to to act on in his decree, and which he determines will remain mere velleities (wishes or inclinations not acted upon).

Most Calvinists accept that God has desires for some things, considered in themselves, that he nevertheless chooses not to fulfil in his decree because of other conflicting desires or when considering something in light of everything else or in a connected way with everything else. In this context, God can desire the salvation of all when considered simpliciter yet desire the salvation of some and the condemnation of some when considered complexiter and in the light of God's desire to display his own glory and attributes above all else.

For these reasons, the existence of premises 4A and the hidden assumption in 4C, Walls's conundrum fails to present any significant problem for the Calvinist theologian. Rather than being a concundrum, it is a Calvinist explanation of the wisdom, knowledge and sovereignty of God.

 

 

 

The Problem with the Arminian View of Foreknowledge

It occurs to me that there is a problem with the Arminian view of God's foreknowledge.

Typically, Arminians believe that God only has simple foreknowledge of what will occur in time. He foresees what will happen and that is all. He then lets it all "play out" so to speak in time. If this is so, then God's foreknowledge is more-or-less useless to him; he knows what will occur, but he is unable to change what will occur. If God has simple foreknowledge of all that will happen in time, then God is unable to change what will occur, for his own actions must also form part of his foreknowledge. Nothing can be different from it is in this world, because God has foreseen and foreknown what will happen.

As I understand it, this does not even leave God with the option of not creating a particular person or allowing a particular course of events to take place, so that the future can be changed, for if God foreknows something, and God cannot change, then what God foreknows cannot be changed either, not even by him.

The God of Arminianism therefore appears to be trapped by his own foreknowledge. This does not seem to me to be in accord with the Scriptures regarding God's sovereignty and ability to bring all his purposes to fulfillment.

This is in sharp contrast with Calvinism where God ordains the future and so could have ordained anything he wanted, and it is also in contrast with Molinism where God foreknows a range of possible worlds and chooses to actualise one of them. It is also in contrast even with Open Theism where God knows possible worlds, but not which one will be realised until free choices are made. Instead, in the simple foreknowledge view, God simply knows what will occur and there appears to be no way for this to be changed, even though God may hate what is going to occur.

In any event, Arminians must face exactly the same criticisms they level at Calvinists. It is common for Arminians to say to Calvinists things like: if your God chooses to allow sin to occur, he is the author of sin. But if God foreknows that sin will occur and does not stop it, he is also morally culpable by any normal reckoning. And if God cannot stop it, then he is not sovereign at all. But according to simple foreknowledge God logically cannot stop evil from occurring or his foreknowledge would be different, which is impossible given the classical view that God's omniscience is immutable.

Why I Am Not an Arminian

Why I Am Not an Arminian
Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams
Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 2004

This very useful book is written by two Reformed theologians, both professors of theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St Louis, Missouri. The book's purpose is to explain in some detail the problems these scholars have with Arminian theology and, indeed, the problems Arminian theology has with the biblical testimony.

The authors say in the Introduction that they would have preferred to have written a biblical defence of Calvinism and entitled the book Why I Am a Calvinist but the publisher wanted a polemical work against Arminianism to counterbalance another book they published called Why I Am Not a Calvinist written by Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell that was published around the same time. However, they state that the real answer to the question why are you not an Arminian is because they are Calvinists and so their treatment of the various subjects under discussion is to present the Arminian viewpoint as fairly as they can, to explain what's the problem with it, and thirdly to present a Calvinist alternative.

The book features a mixture of two types of chapters. Chapters Two and Five deal with historical theology, with Chapter Two exploring the fundamental difference between the theology of Augustine and Pelagius in the Fifth century AD, and Chapter Five exploring the 17th-century controversy between Jacob Arminius and the Calvinists of the Dutch Reformed churches, culminating in the Synod of Dort in 1618-19 which condemned Arminianism (though this happened some years after Arminius's death in 1609).

The remaining chapters cover subjects including predestination, perseverance, inability, freedom, grace and atonement in which they examine the problems with the Arminian view of each of these topics and explain the Calvinist view.

The authors are careful to present Arminian views carefully, often quoting from primary sources such as the writings of Arminius himself, as well as the likes of John Wesley, H. Orton Wiley, Carl Bangs, Ray Dunning, Kenneth Grider, and Clark Pinnock.

I also appreciated the gracious tone of the book as both authors affirm Arminians as fellow Christian believers. "We do not think of Arminianism as a heresy or Arminian Christians as unregenerate" (p.13) and "the Calvinist and the Arminian are brothers in Christ." Yet they are clear that "at certain points Arminianism presents a skewed picture of the gospel" (p.13)

Earlier, I said that the authors present a Calvinist viewpoint and I say so deliberately because there are places where not all Calvinists would agree with Peterson and Williams' views. For example, the authors clearly sympathise in some ways with Arminius's rejection of Beza's supralapsarianism, which they also seem to strongly reject, though of course they believe Arminius went too far. I'm also sure not every Calvinist would entirely agree with their treatment of how divine sovereignty and human responsiblity and free will co-exist.

Having said this, this remains a useful guide to the problems with Arminian theology from a Calvinist perspective.

Dealing with the "Arminian" Texts – Part 4

This is the fourth and final part of our series of posts looking at a number of so-called "Arminian" texts—texts often cited by opponents of Reformed theology in the belief that they somehow undermine or refute Calvinism.

1 Timothy 2:3-4

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

This is one of the most frequently cited verses by Arminians against the Reformed doctrines of grace, especially against particular redemption, but also against unconditional election. The Arminian argument is straightforward. The verse says God desires everyone to be saved; Calvinism says that God desires (at least in the sense of the desires he decides to decree to come to pass) the elect to the saved and the non-elect to be damned. Therefore, Calvinism must be incorrect.

There are at least two ways Calvinists have answered the Arminian view.

The first Calvinist view says that we need to look at context to dispel Arminian claims. In verse 1, Paul writes: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people." We note again the phrase "all people"—the same words as are found in verse 4. Paul says Timothy's church is to pray for all people. Did he mean that they were to pray for every single person without exception? We they, as it were, supposed to get out the voter's roll for Ephesus and work their way through it in prayer? That seems unlikely. The true interpretation is confirmed by verse which explains the "all people" of verse 1: "for kings and all who are in high positions." 

Paul means that they are not to exclude any type of person in their prayers. They are to pray as much for kings and governors as they are for ordinary people. Therefore, "all people" in context means "all kinds of people". No class or type of person is to be excluded from the congregation's prayers.

So then, in verse 4, Paul means that God desires all kinds of people to be saved. He did not mean that God desires the salvation of everyone without exception. So the Arminian use of this verse simply falls apart. 

A second Calvinist view, accepts that the verse does teach God has a desire to save everyone without exception. It is not controversial in Reformed theology to teach that God has desires for some things that he chooses not to fulfil via his decree. Considered as a thing in itself, it pleases God for sinners to come to faith and be saved. He has this desire towards all his creatures. But this does not contradict the parallel truth that God also desires to save only some and to allow some to bc condemned for his own glory and the display of his justice. This Calvinist view counters the Arminian more fundamentally in some respects by saying "so what?" - we agree God desires all people to be saved and we preach the free offer of salvation on that basis, yet we do not deny God also has a secret or decretive will that purposes only to save the elect and condemn the reprobate.

My own view tends towards the first of these views, but both are valid in Reformed theology. 

1 Timothy 4:10

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, especially of those who believe.

The Arminian interpretation of this verse is normally something along the lines that God has made salvation available to everyone (without exception) but it is effective only especially for those who believe. The problem of course is that this is not what the verse says.

If "Saviour of all people" means Saviour of everyone without exception then the verse proves too much and teaches universalism—that all are saved, especially those who believe. This would conflict with dozens of verses and passages that teach those not everyone is saved.

There are three Calvinist interpretations of this verse. 

Firstly, that "all people" has the same connotation as 1 Timothy 2:4 that we have just looked at and means "all kinds of people". Once we note that the Greek word translated "especially" (malista) could also be translated "namely" or "more specifically" we can see that the verse means "the living God, who is the Saviour of all kinds of people, namely [or more specifically] those who believe." The verse then makes perfect sense and is fully compatible with Calvinism.

Another Calvinist interpretation, notes that the word for "Saviour" (soter) is not always used in the sense of saving from sin. It can also mean a "preserver" or "deliverer" from non-salvation related situations, such as illness or danger. According to this view, the verse is only pointing out that God preserves and delivers everyone, but especially "delivers" in the full salvific sense believers. Personally, I think this view is open to charges of "special pleading" as it requires Paul to be using "Saviour" in a different sense here from is found in almost all occurrences in Paul's writings.

Third, some Calvinists simply acknowledge that Christ has been appointed as the sole Saviour of mankind though he accomplishes salvation only for those who believe (the elect). Many Calvinists accept that though the intention in the cross was to save the elect, this does not preclude Christ being set forth, held out or offered as Saviour to everyone through the gospel. In his revealed will, God sends Christ as Saviour for anyone who will believe in him; in his decretive will, God sends Christ to save the elect. While there may be mystery as to how these two ideas fit together, there is no contradiction.

2 Peter 2:1

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

In this verse Peter mentions false teachers who "deny the Master who bought them." This, according to Arminian views, conflicts with limited atonement, as we apparaently here have Peter acknowledging that Christ died for false teachers who are not saved.

Clearly, from other places in Scripture, we know that those "bought" (or "redeemed") by Christ are saved, the Arminian view cannot be correct, particularly since these false teachers have brought swift destruction on themselves. So, another interpretation must be possible.

One such interpretation is that Peter was saying that the false teachers were denying the Master who they claimed to believe had bought them. He is, as it were, writing not from the perspective of the truth, but from the perspective of the false teachers' claims. It is almost as if he is putting inverted commas around the words. If this view is right, Peter was saying something like this: "even denying the Master "who bought them," bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

Another Calvinist interpretation, regards Peter as writing of them from the point of view of their having been associated with the body of believers. They are part of the visible church or covenant community, though as non-elect not part of the true invisible church or real covenant people. As Christ died for the church, insofar as the false believers associated with the church, Peter could speak in a sense of them denying the Master who it would appear bought them according to their own (false) profession.

A third view argues that "bought" here does not refer to salvation at all, but to Christ's ownership over them as created people, rather than as redeemed people. This view points out that "bought" could refer to any type of deliverance paid for. It could therefore be referring to outward benefits received by these men by being drawn into the church community (such as deliverance from idolatry or obvious wickedness in their lives) and therefore might not concern the atonement of Christ at all.

These three views have some overlap elements of all three views are present in this ambiguous verse in 2 Peter.

One final point to make that applies to this verse and many of the others claimed by our Arminian friends is that this passage is not about the atonement. The phrase in question is tangential to the main argument of the passage which is about false teachers. It is always dangerous to base a doctrine not on the main passages that deal with the subject, but on isolated words and phrases capable of more than one interpretation.

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slow to fulfil his promise as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

This verse in 2 Peter is one of the most frequently used verses by Arminians. Along with Matthew 23:37 and 1 Timothy 2:4 it forms what James White calls "the Big Three" cited over and over again by Arminian authors. The Arminian takes the phrase "no wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" and claims this applies universally. God wants to save everyone and so by implication election, predestination and limited atonment must be false.

The Calvinist can respond forthrightly and as we have frequently seen, there are several Calvinist approaches.

The one group of Calvinists maintains that these words should not be viewed as having a universal import, but rather that they apply to the "you" (plural) of the verse. The "you" of the verse are the recipients and addressees of the letter, and that is not everyone without exception, but God's people, the elect. The "you" of the verse is "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1).

Peter is really saying "God is patient with you, not wishing that any [of you] should perish. The context bears out that view. The passage is dealing with the timing of the second coming of Christ. Peter is explaining that God delays this cataclysmic event in order that all of the elect would come to faith because he is not willing that any of them should perish.

An alternative Calvinist viewpoint, similar to approaches we have seen already in John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, Matthew 23:37 and other places, acknowledges the Arminian interpretation insofar as 2 Peter 3:9 does teach that God is unwilling that anyone perish (not in the absolute sense of his sovereign or decretive will), but in the sense of his revealed or preceptive will. This to be preached to all because God does in one sense desire all to be saved and that none perish, and the Biblical revelation both includes God's desire towards salvation for all AND his decree to save only the elect and believers must keep both truths in tension without jettisoning either. Both the Arminian and the High/Hyper Calvinist are in danger of overemphasising one to the exclusion of the other truth. Evangelical Calvinists hold to both, even if they cannot rationally explain how they logically cohere.

1 John 2:2

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

I believe we can deal with this verse quite quickly. As with John 3:16, here the Arminian believes this verse teaches that Christ died for everyone without exception. They tend to point to the words, "the whole world" to underline their argument. The Arminian view tends to contrast "not for ours" by which they understand all current Christians at the time John was writing with "the whole world" meaning everyone without exception.

One Calvinist view points out that "whole world" need not mean "everyone without exception". Even within the context of First John this is clear. In 1 John 5:19 John says: "and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." Clearly this does not include the church who are not under Satan's rule, so the addition of "whole" to world does not make it mean "everyone without exception" automatically.

If the whole world meant everyone without exception here then the verse would teach that Christ is the propitiation for all sins of everyone. This would lead to universalism as how could God condemn anyone if Christ has already taken away that person's sins and turned aside God's wrath from them?

In this view, "our sins"—the sins of those already believing—is contrasted with the sins of all the nations—the whole world—everyone who would come to believe from any nation on earth.

As with other verses, a second Calvinist interpretation, accepts that "whole world" means everyone, but argues that John means simply that Christ is sufficient to propitiate the sins of the whole world, even though he efficiently propitiates the sins only of the elect and that both aspects are God's intent. Calvinists taking this view include the likes of W. G. T. Shedd, C. H. Spurgeon and John MacArthur - all pointing to the sufficiency of the atonement for all while also holding that the atonement is effective only for the elect.

Dealing with the "Arminian" Texts – Part 3

This is the third in our series of posts looking at a number of so-called "Arminian" texts—texts often cited by opponents of Reformed theology in the belief that they somehow undermine or refute Calvinism.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

This is probably the best-known verse in the entire Bible. The Arminian view is that “world” means everyone without exception—God loves you, no ifs or buts. In addition, they typically point to “whoever” as meaning that anyone and everyone has the power to believe if they choose. The Arminian view of John 3:16 can be summarised as God loves you—no exceptions, Christ died for you—no exceptions, and it’s up to you if you believe in him or not.

There are serious flaws in this view from the Calvinist viewpoint.

The basic problem with the Arminian claim is that in the Bible, “world” (kosmos in Greek) has a range of different meanings, and usually does not refer to everyone without exception. I believe that “world” here has two meanings. First, it refers to the humanc race in the sense of all peoples (not all individual people), namely Jews and Gentiles. And second, it also in John’s writings has a connotation of humanity in rebellion against God. I would summarise the combined meaning as “sinners from all the nations”. 

I am also clear that the open-ended term “sinners from all the nations” could refer to everyone without exception as Arminians and some Calvinists maintain but it need not do so. It can as easily refer to all without distinction. I am convinced in the wider context, the "world" so loved connotes to those whom God has chosen for salvation, not least since the next verse, John 3:17, states plainly that Christ came to save the same world that God loves in verse 16. We know from elsewhere in John’s Gospel that Christ will lose none of what the Father gives him, but will save them all (see John 6, John 10). 

Therefore, John 3:16 simply means that God does not love only the Jews, but all the nations so that not just the Jews, but “everyone who believes” or literally “every believing one” (both better translations than “whoever” or “whosoever” believes) will be saved. This interpretation makes much more sense in the context of Jesus’ conversation with the Jewish leader Nicodemus and with the Old Testament parallel Jesus mentions of the serpent on a pole back in Moses’ day. Just as everyone who looked on the serpent was healed, so everyone who believes in the Son will be saved, and distinctions of race or nationality do not come into it. But the verse certainly need not be interpreted in the Arminian manner and does not override plain passages which speak of predestination or election (e.g. Ephesians 1, Romans 9, etc.)

Acts 7:51

You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

This verse from Stephen's speech prior to his martyrdom is used by Arminians to argue that God's saving purposes can be thwarted by sinful human beings, and by implication, Arminians suggest there can be no decree or decision of God that determines salvation. The phrase used to argue this was is "resist the Holy Spirit." The Arminian argues this refers to God's will to save everyone without exception.

The Calvinist argues on the contrary that this "resisting the Holy Spirit" does not refer to God's decree (God's decretive will or God's secret will) but to God's preceptive will or God's revealed will. We believe the reference is to the people of Israel disobeying God's commands in Scripture, which of course comes from the Holy Spirit through inspiration. 

The immediate context surrounding verse 51 backs this interpretion up. In the following verse Stephen talks about the people opposing and killings God's prophets—those who brought God's message tudio the people, those who foretold of the coming of the Messiah. In verse 54, Stephen gives the context of what "resisting the Holy Spirit" amounts to: "you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it."

Therefore, I believe that Acts 7:51 clearly refers to the people rejecting God's law and promises, but this has nothing to do with God's will of decree which cannot be thwarted (see Job 42:1, "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted" and Isaiah 46:9-10, " I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose'.")

Hebrews 2:9  

But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

This verse from Hebrews is often cited by Arminians as evidence against the Reformed doctrine of particular redemption. The argument is that since the verse says that Christ "might taste death for everyone" how can it be true that Christ died only to save the elect?

To begin with, we need to be clear that the word translated "everyone" is the Greek word pantos meaning "all". The phrase could be translated "he might taste death for all."

This helps slightly because we can then ask, which "all" is in view here? Though we could also ask which "everyone" is in view? 

The Arminian reads it as "everyone" or "all" without exception. Yet given the way the Bible refers to the atonement as accomplishing salvation and not merely making salvation provisionally available, this is deeply problematic. If "all means all" as the Arminian argues, this would imply universalism given the way the Bible speaks of the atonement. 

In the following verse, it refers to Christ "bringing many sons to glory" not "all sons". This would suggest there is also a limitation on the "all" of verse 9 to those who are saved. Similarly, in verse 11 it refers to those who are sanctified or made holy and that they "all" have their source of sanctification in Christ. The context here teaches that "all" does not always mean "all" "all" the time.

An alternative Calvinist interpretation would be that although Christ died to save only the elect, nonetheless, his death was sufficient to save everyone and that everyone called to faith and offered salvation without exception and in this sense Christ could be said to taste death for everyone, though he did not intend to redeem everyone and save them. 

Dealing with the "Arminian" Texts – Part 2

This is the second in what will be series of posts looking at a number of so-called "Arminian" texts—texts often cited by opponents of Reformed theology in the belief that they somehow undermine or refute Calvinism.

Lamentations 3:33

For he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men.

The next text occasionally cited is this short fragment of Lamentations chapter 3. The Arminian argument seems to run along the lines that here the Scriptures state God does not willingly afflict or grieve human beings, yet Calvinism teaches the exact opposite since God chooses some for salvation and chooses for others to remain unsaved and to be punished for their sins.

We can deal with this objection quite quickly. The verse has nothing whatever to do with the doctrines of election or reprobation, nor does it contradict the Bible's teaching that God is a righteous judge who administers justice—including punishment for sin—and indeed delights in justice (see Jeremiah 9:24).

In the verse immediately preceding this one, the writer is clear that God does "cause grief" (v.32). For his children, he administers discipline as a good Father. For the wicked, he administers justice. And in both cases he acts according to his desires for discipline and justice. It is just as a human parent takes no enjoyment in punishing their children and does so with a heavy heart, yet it is done for the child's ultimate good and in shaping a good and well-rounded person that punishment is sometimes necessary. It is the improvement of the child's character that the parent delights in, not the discipline or punishment considered in itself, even though it is a necessary step towards the ultimate goal.

This verse simply teaches that God is not cruel or nasty. He is no sadist. Although he does "cause grief" and sends people pain and suffering as discipline or as punishment, he does not do so because he enjoys it, but for higher goals of disciplining the children he loves for their good or for constraining the evil of the wicked and giving them justice. The verse teaches that God does not derivce pleasure or happiness in punishing anyone when considered as a thing in itself. The sentiment here is closely related to the verses found in Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11.

Matthew 18:14

So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

This is another verse sometimes cited as implying that it is not the will of God in any sense that anyone perish. As such, the Arminian sees it as being a denial that God has any decree of reprobation and instead God would save everyone if he could, but obviously cannot achieve his aim because human free will is the determining factor in each person's salvation.

A common theme in these verses, as you may have noticed, is that Arminians tend to accept that this kind of verse should encompass everyone without exception. Likewise, you will notice that Calvinists tend to look closer at the context and restrict the application of the verses to those who are saved and not to everyone. This verse is no exception.

The verse takes place at the end of Jesus' Parable of the Lost Sheep. Matthew 18:12-14 reads like this:

What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

It is obvious that the sheep, as they consistently do in Scripture (see Psalm 23, John 10), represent those who are Christ's people, those who are saved. The 100th lost sheep does not stand for everyone, but for those who will be saved but are not yet saved. They are one of the elect, yet before coming to faith. It is precisely the Father's will that not one of his elect should perish. When properly understood, far from being a problem for Calvinism, this verse supports Calvinism.

Matthew 23:37 

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Matthew 23:37 is one of the most common verses cited by Arminians against Calvinism.

We should note that once again the Arminian interpretation has little to do with the context of the verse. The passage is not dealing with the atonement, the gospel offer, irresistible or resistible grace, far less election or predestination. The context is judgment and condemnation of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. Read the context of the passage surrounding this verse to see that is true.

This verse merely teaches that in his revealed will, Christ does desire and seek to save everyone in Jerusalem (the children), as his Saviour's heart goes out to all sinners and bids them come to him in faith to find salvation. It is this will, this desire, this delight in sinners finding salvation, that leads to Christ's anger against those who would seek to block or prevent others coming to faith in the Messiah (i.e. the leaders of the people).

The verse has nothing to do with and does not contradict the fact that in his secret or decretive will, God nevertheless chooses some for salvation and rejects others for salvation. As he taught elsewhere, "many are called but few are chosen" and all those who are called are genuinely and sincerely called. Those who refuse cannot blame God, for even though he has chosen to pass them by for salvation, he take no pleasure in their loss.

The verse condemns the Jewish leaders not only for killing the prophets in the past, but also in opposing Christ's mission to save sinners ("you would not"). The verse says that the leaders tried to prevent Christ saving the "children" of Jerusalem, but it does not teach that Christ would fail to save his people in the city. Far from it. Within weeks, on Pentecost, three thousand people were converted and saved, despite the city's leaders being opposed. Little did they know that their opposition and finally their plotting to kill Jesus would be the very means used in the plan of God to bring about the salvation of the elect (see Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:27-28).

Luke 7:30

But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

This verse is fairly often mentioned by Arminians and other non-Calvinists. The argument is that Calvinism teaches that God's purpose or decree is always carried out and cannot be thwarted by anything. Yet here we find that the Pharisees and lawyers were able to "reject" the purpose of God. Arminians therefore believe that God's will can be thwarted by human free will. He may wish people to be saved, but people are free to reject God's will.

It is important to note that the key word, translated "purpose" in the ESV is the Greek word boulé which could also be translated as the "counsel" of God, "will" of God or even "decree" of God. It usually refers to a "resolved" or "determined" plan. However, it can also refer to "counsel" in the sense of advice or "will" in the sense of God's recommendation. It can refer not to God's decree or purpose in the sense of his detemination of events, which can never be frustrated, but to God's commands or precepts representing God's wise counsel or advice on how to live or what to do. It was this, the call to repent and accept God's mercy, that the Pharisees and Experts in the Law rejected for themselves.

As some Calvinists note, even if this is a reference to the decree of God, which always comes to pass, the verse does not state that God's purpose for them was their salvation. It need only be God's purpose that they be exposed to the good news and to Christ. Even this they rejected. There is nothing in Calvinism to rule out it being God's purpose for them to meet Christ and hear his gospel and God's purpose for them to reject the good news.

Either of these approaches is feasible. Neither requires us to accept that the human will can actually overturns God's sovereign will.

Dealing with the "Arminian" Texts – Part 1

While I am convinced the overall teaching of the Bible points very clearly that Reformed theology or Calvinism, to give it its nickname, is true, there have always been a number of texts in the Bible used by Arminians to attempt to show that Calvinism does not match up with what the Bible says. Often these are isolated verses, plucked from context, and used as if to say, "Aha, so if Calvinism is true, why does the Bible say X..."

We will look at some of the main verses used in this way, explain why they might seem to be a problem for Calvinism, and then give explanations of the verses or reasons why they do not undermine Reformed theology. I hope fellow Calvinists and Arminians will find this process useful.

In this regard we will look at a number of such passages In each instance we will initially quote the verse from the ESV Bible. These are not every passage we could have cited, but they include the main ones usually brought up in opposition to Reformed doctrine.

To avoid this becoming a very long post, we will split this into a number of parts. In this part we deal with three verses, one in Isaiah and two that form a pair in Ezekiel.

Isaiah 53:6

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

We begin with this verse from the astonishing and well-known prophecy in Isaiah 53 which clearly foretells of the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus the Messiah. The alleged problem for Calvinism in this verse comes in the words "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

Calvinism teaches what is known as particular redemption or limited atonement, the doctrine that Christ died with the intention of saving the elect only, that is, with the intent of saving a specific number of people who are in fact saved. Arminianism by contrast, teached unlimited atonement, that Christ died to save everyone, but only those who believe benefit from his death. The difference is clear enough. The Arminian believes Christ died equally as much for those who are saved as for those who are lost; the Calvinist believes Christ died only for those who believe, who are brought to faith by God's choice and power.

This verse says that the LORD laid on Christ the iniquity of us all. The Arminian looks at the word "all". The Calvinist answer to this one is fairly obvious. We look at the word "us" before "all". Who are the us mentioned? The Arminian requires that "us" to be everyone—all of humanity. But does the context bear this out?

Look at the preceding verse 5: "But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed." 

Here is no provisional atonement for all indiscriminately yet only activated by faith for some. The text plainly says that this atonement is effectual for all for whom it is made. His punishment "brought us peace" and "with his stripes we are healed." Since not all are healed, and not all have peace with God, it is clear enough that the passage is addressed to God's people, not everyone without exception. 

This is further supported by verse 11, "Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities."  

Here the verse is clear that the "all" of verse 6 is now recognised as the "many" of verse 11. Those whom the Messiah dies for will be "accounted righteous". This is not true of everyone, but only of those for whom he made atonement.

This verse present no problem whatsovever for the Reformed doctrine of particular redemption. We believe the LORD did indeed lay on him the iniquities of US all who are the Lord's people by faith.

Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11

For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live. (18:32)

Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? (33:11)

This pair of verses in Ezekiel are often cited by Arminians. The argument is that since God says he has "no pleasure in the death of anyone" and "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked" this somehow proves that predestination as Calvinism teaches it, cannot be true.

There are two Calvinist approaches to these verses. 

One group of Calvinists simply points out that verses are addressed not to people in general, but to the "house of Israel" or God's covenant people in particular. This is explicit in both passages. In chapter 18, verse 30 reads (two verses before the quotation): "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin." Similarly, 33:11 is also addressed to the people of Israel. Therefore, for this group of exegetes, God has no pleasure in the death of his people.

A second group of Calvinists accepts that God does not have pleasure in anyone's death, or to be more accurate, does not take any delight in (Hebrew chaphets) any person's death when considered as a thing in itself. Yet although God might be said not to take delight in or enjoy/take pleasure from anyone's death when considered in isolation, nevertheless the Bible also teaches that whatever God desires, he does (Job 23:13) and also that God delights in seeing justice done (Jeremiah 9:24) and in displaying his own attributes including justice and wrath (Romans 9:22). When considered in that light, these verses in no way contradict the Bible's teaching that God chose not to save everyone, but chose to pass by the reprobate and punish them for their sins. 

God's internal pleasures and delights are undoubtedly complex and it may be that considered in itself God may not take pleasure in death—and conversely does have a delight or desire towards the salvation of all, even those he has decreed not to save—yet when viewed in the wider lens of all things being considered together, he does delight in expressing and doing justice, even if that means death for some sinners. In any internal hierarchy of delight, desires, or wishes, God highest desire is to glorify himself in the display of all his attributes (see Ephesians 1:11-12 and Romans 9:22-23).

Both approaches have some things in their favour. The verses are undoubtedly addressed to the covenant people and not all humanity in general. So it could be that the verses are only speaking of the death of those chosen for salvation. Yet they seem to indicate something wider than that in my view. But equally, if the second view is correct, these verses in no way can be used to deny the Calvinist doctrines of election and reprobation as these represent the desires God was pleased to decree to come to pass, even if considered separately, Gods Word reveals other desires he chose not to satisfy in his decree.

Arminian Theology

Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
Roger E. Olson
IVP 2006

This is a very interesting book that claims to introduce Arminian theology as it really is and not as it's opponents too often portray it. As such, Olson is adamant that Arminianism is at least as much a legitimate option for evangelical Christians as Calvinism (and in his view more so).

I have to admit that I was intrigued as I have till now based my judgment of Arminianism almost exclusively on Calvinist resources. I also have to admit serious ignorance of what Arminianism actually teaches. I honestly thought that Arminianism more or less taught simply the opposite to the five points of Calvinism and was surprised that evangelical Arminians affirm total depravity and some also affirm perseverance of the saints (two out of the five points of Calvinism). In this respect, Arminianism can be seen as a kind of moderate Reformed theology rather than the antithesis of it.

Olson's book goes through a series of ten "myths" about Arminianism and seeks to dispel each one. The book focuses a lot on historical theology and unfortunately there is very little biblical exegesis. I don't say this to score a cheap point. It is not a reflection on Arminianism's inability to base its conclusions on the biblical text. I simply think that Olson has chosen to focus on what some of Arminianism's most important theologians have taught. He makes the point that true Arminianism is both misunderstood by its opponents and perhaps by many who claim to embrace it. This confusion amplifies the problem, but the fact is that true Arminianism is more Calvinistic (if I can put it that way) than many of it's proponents think. Olson says that much of modern day evangelicalism is semi-Pelagian not truly Arminian. The problem is that Calvinists looking on, think that when they see semi-Pelagianism they are actually seeing Arminianism, and so Arminianism is semi-Pelagian. But Olson makes a good case for distinguishing sharply between the two. I found Olson's counterpoints a real eye-opener.

The "myths" that Olson seeks to dispel are that:

1. Arminianism is simply the opposite of Calvinism/Reformed theology
2. A hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism is possible
3. Arminianism is not an orthodox evangelical option
4. The heart of Arminianism is belief in free will
5. Arminian theology denies the sovereignty of God
6. Arminianism is a human-centred theology
7. Arminianism is not a theology of grace
8. Arminians do not believe in predestination
9. Arminian theology denies justification by grace alone through faith alone
10. All Arminians believe in the Governmental theory of the atonement

The corresponding realities are therefore:

1. Arminianism is more like a branch of Reformed theology than its opposite
2. Although Calvinism and Arminianism share much in common, they are distinct theological systems on a number of key points and no hybrid is possible on these points
3. Arminianism is an orthodox evangelical option and affirms all the fundamental points of the historic Christian faith
4. The heart of Arminianism is the loving and gracious character of God
5. Arminianism affirms the sovereignty of God but sees it as choosing to give human freedom rather than meticulously controlling all human choices
6. Arminianism is not an "optimistic" theology of human nature, but agrees with Calvinists that human beings are dead in trespasses and sin by nature
7. Arminianism is a doctrine of grace, recognising that no-one can come to God unless drawn by God's grace through the Holy Spirit. The difference with Calvinism being that Arminianism understands God to draw everyone in the same way and such grace to be resistible
8. Arminians believe in predestination but not unconditional election and reprobation, rather they either affirm the predestination of the church corporately or of believers through God's foreknowledge
9. Arminians strongly affirm the central Reformation insight of justification by grace alone through faith alone, including Arminius and Wesley
10. Many Arminians affirm penal substitionary atonement, including Arminius and Wesley

Late in the book, Olson says that it is incumbent when criticising a position to engage with its proponents (and indeed its best proponents) and allow them to put forward what they actually think. I have certainly been guilty of not doing this.

It seems to me that Calvinists looking to deal with Arminianism fairly could do a lot worse than use Olson's book as a reference. I only wish that Olson had done a lot more exegesis to back up the arguments for his position. Had he done so, the book would have been even more valuable.