To A Sinner Possible Salvation Is Impossible Salvation

“A possible salvation would be to a sinner an impossible salvation. Mere salvability would be to him inevitable destruction. It will be admitted, without argument, that a possible salvation is not, in itself, an actual salvation. That which may be is not that which is. Before a possible can become an actual salvation something needs to be done—a condition must be performed upon which is suspended its passage from possibility to actuality. The question is, What is this thing which needs to be done—what is this condition which must be fulfilled before salvation can become a fact to the sinner? The Arminian answer is: Repentance and faith on the sinner's part. He must consent to turn from his iniquities and accept Christ as his Saviour. The further question presses, By what agency does the sinner perform this condition—by what power does lie repent, believe, and so accept salvation? The answer to this question, whatever it may be, must indicate the agency, the power, which determines the sinner's repenting, believing and so accepting salvation. It is not enough to point out an agency, a power, which is, however potent, merely an auxiliary to the determining cause. It is the determining cause itself that must be given as the answer to the question. It must be a factor which renders, by virtue of its own energy, the final decision—an efficient cause which, by its own inherent causality, makes a possible salvation an actual and experimental fact. What is this causal agent which is the sovereign arbiter of human destiny? The Arminian answer to this last question of the series is, 'The sinner's will.' It is the sinner's will which, in the last resort, determines the question whether a possible, shall become an actual, salvation. This has already been sufficiently evinced in the foregoing remarks. But what need is there of argument to prove what any one, even slightly acquainted with Arminian theology, knows that it maintains? Indeed, it is one of the distinctive and vital features of that theology, contra-distinguishing it to the Calvinistic. The Calvinist holds that the efficacious and irresistible grace of God applies salvation to the sinner; the Arminian, that the grace of God although communicated to every man is inefficacious and resistible, and that the sinner's will uses it as merely an assisting influence in determining the final result of accepting a possible salvation and so making it actual. Grace does not determine the will; the will 'improves' the grace and determines itself. Grace is the handmaid, the sinner's will the mistress. Let us suppose that in regard to the question whether salvation shall be accepted, there is a perfect equipoise between the motions of grace and the contrary inclinations of the sinner's will. A very slight added influence will destroy the equilibrium. Shall it be from grace or from the sinner's will? If from the former, grace determines the question, and the Calvinistic doctrine is admitted. But that the Arminian denies. It must then be from the sinner's will; and however slight and inconsiderable this added influence of the will may be, it determines the issue. It is like the feather that alights upon one of two evenly balanced scales and turns the beam.

“Moreover, this will of the sinner which discharges the momentous office of determining the question of salvation is his natural will. It cannot be a gracious will, that is, a will renewed by grace; for if it were, the sinner would be already in a saved condition. But the very question is, Will he consent to be saved 2 Now if it be not the will of a man already in a saved condition, it is the will of a man yet in an unsaved condition. It is the will of an unbelieving and un converted man, that is, a natural man, and consequently must be a natural will. It is this natural will, then, which finally determines the question whether a possible salvation shall become an actual. It is its high office to settle the matter of practical salvation. In this solemn business, as in all others, it has an irrefragable autonomy. Not even in the critical transition from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God's dear Son, can it be refused the exercise of its sacred and inalienable prerogative of contrary choice. At the supreme moment of the final determination of the soul “for Christ to live and die,” the determination might be otherwise. The will may be illuminated, moved, assisted by grace, but not controlled and determined by it. To the last it has the power of resisting grace and of successfully resisting it. To it—I use the language reluctantly—the blessed Spirit of God is represented as sustaining the attitude of the persuasive orator of grace. He argues, he pleads, he expostulates, lie warns, he beseeches the sinner's will in the melting accents of Calvary and alarms it with the thunders of judgment—but that is all. He cannot without tres passing upon its sovereignty renew and re-create and determine his will. This is no misrepresentation, no exaggeration, of the Arminian’s position. It is what he contends for. It is what he must contend for. It is one of the hinges on which his system turns. Take it away, and the system swings loosely and gravitates to an inevitable fall.

“Now this is so palpably opposed to Scripture and the facts of experience, that Evangelical Arminians endeavor to modify it, so as to relieve it of the charge of being downright Pelagianism. That the attempt is hopeless, has already been shown. It is utterly vain to say, that grace gives ability to the sinner sufficient for the formation of that final volition which decides the question of personal salvation. Look at it. Do they mean, by this ability, regenerating grace? If they do, as regenerating grace unquestionably determines the sinner's will, they give mp their position and adopt the Calvinistic. No; they affirm that they do not, because the Calvinistic position is liable to two insuperable objections: first, that it limits efficacious grace to the elect, denying it to others; secondly, that efficacious and determining grace would contradict the laws by which the human will is governed. It comes back to this, then: that notwithstanding this imparted ability, the natural will is the factor which determines the actual relation of the soul to salvation. The admission of a gracious ability, therefore, does not relieve the difficulty. It is not an efficacious and determining influence; it is simply suasion. The natural will may yield to it or resist it. It is a vincible influence. Now this being the real state of the case, according to the Arminian scheme, it is perfectly manifest that no sinner could be saved. There is no need of argument. It is simply out of the question, that the sinner in the exercise of his natural will can repent, believe in Christ, and so make a possible salvation actual. Let it be clearly seen that, in the final settlement of the question of personal religion, the Arminian doctrine is, that the will does not decide as determined by the grace of God, but by its own inherent self-determining power, and the inference, if any credit is attached to the statements of Scripture, is forced upon us, that it makes the salvation of the sinner impossible. A salvation, the appropriation of which is dependent upon the sinner's natural will, is no salvation; and the Arminian position is that the appropriation of salvation is dependent upon the natural will of the sinner. The stupendous paradox is thus shown to be true—that a merely possible salvation is an impossible salvation.” 

John L. Girardeau, Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism Compared, Part I, Section III: Objections From Divine Goodness

Socinian "Foreknowledge" More Logical than Arminian "Foreknowledge"

“In respect to this point (viz., Divine Foreknowledge, aku), the Socinian is more logical than the Arminian. Both agree that God does not decree those events which result from the action of the human will. Voluntary acts are not predetermined, but depend solely upon human will. Whether they shall occur rests ultimately upon man's decision, not upon God's. Hence human volitions are uncertainties for God, in the same way that an event which does not depend u[on a man's decision is an uncertainty for him. The inference which the Socinian drew from this was, that foreknowledge of such events as human volitions is impossible to God. God cannot foreknow a thing that may or may not be a thing; an event that may or may not be an event. The Arminian, shrinking from this limitation of the divine omniscience, asserts that God can foreknow an uncertainty; that is, that he can have foreknowledge, without fore-ordination. But in this case, there is in reality nothing to be foreknown; there is no object of foreknowledge. If the question be asked, What does God foreknow? and the answer be, that he foreknows that a particular volition will be a holy one; the reply is, that so far as the Divine decree is concerned, the volition may prove to be a sinful one. In this case, God's foreknowledge is a conjecture only, not knowledge. It is like a man's guess. If, on the contrary, the answer be, that God foreknows that the volition will be a sinful one, the reply is, that it may prove to be a holy one. In this case, also, God's foreknowledge is only a conjecture. To know, or to foreknow, an uncertainty, is a solecism. For in order to either knowledge or foreknowledge, there must be only one actual thing to be known or foreknown but in the supposed case of contingency and uncertainty, there are two possible things, either of which may turn out to be an object of knowledge, but neither of which is the one certain and definite object required. There is, therefore, nothing knowable in the case. To know, or foreknow an uncertainty, is to know or foreknow a non-entity. If it be objected, that since God, as eternal, decrees all things simultaneously, and consequently there is really no fore-ordination for him, it is still true that in the logical order an event must be a certainty before it can be known as such.”  

W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Chapter VI, pg 397-398

Augustus Toplady Responds to Walter Sellon

“I had before been delineated, by an Arminian helpmeet of Mr. Wesley’s, as ‘sitting in my easy chair, and enjoying all the comforts of life.’ One would think, that the see of Durham had been transferred to Broad-Hembury, and that the Devonshire Vicar was warmly enrobed in lawn and black satin. So much for my attitude and enjoyments; next for my titles; these Mr. Sellon enumerates. I am, it seems, (See the Gospel Magazine March, 1771) ‘A Flaming Calvinist;  A Dragon;  An Hooter; A Venomous Slanderer; A Persecutor, possessing the same butcherly spirit that was in bishop Gardiner; yea, ten times more; A Perfectionist; A malapert Boy, severely scratching and clawing with venomous nails; A Papist; A Socinian; A Mahometan; The greatest Bigot that ever existed, without one grain of candour, benevolence, forbearance, moderation, good-will, or charity; A wild Beast of impatience and lion-like fury; A Materialist’ - that is, an Atheist.

“A goodly string of appellations! And not a little extraordinary, that they should all centre in one and the same man! Being so uncommon a person myself, my writings too must be something singular. Take a description of them in the words of the said Sellon: ‘I find sophistry, fallacy, false insinuation, raillery, perversion of scripture and the church articles, self-contradiction, self-sufficiency, haughtiness, pride and vanity, glaring in almost every page.’

“Thus, enthroned in my easy chair, dignified with titles, and accurately developed as a writer, I only want a suitable address, to render my magnificence complete; and who so well qualified to prepare it, as the eloquent Mr. Sellon? Lo, he attends; and, respectfully advancing, pays me the following compliments: ‘Unhappily daring, and unpardonably bold, thy tongue imagineth wickedness, and with lies thou cuttest like a sharp razor. Thou hast loved unrighteousness more than goodness; and to talk of lies more than righteousness. Thou hast loved to speak all words that may do hurt, O thou false tongue.’ Such are the candour and politeness of these Methodists; and such are the arguments, by which they would persuade us, that Arminianism is the religion of the Church of England.

“These are the men that set up for ‘universal love;’ who call one another by the cant names of ‘precious believers,’ ‘most excellent souls,’ ‘charming children of God,’ ‘sweet Christians,’ and ‘the clean-hearted.’ If their hearts are no cleaner than their mouths, they have little reason to value themselves on their ‘sinless perfection.’ These are they who seek to bottom election on faith and goodness foreseen; of which foreseen goodness, humility and benevolence, meekness and forbearance, are, I suppose, some of the ingredients. Woe be to those ‘sweet Christians,’ if their election has no better foundation than their ‘sweet’ tempers, words, and works.

“And why all this torrent of abuse? The plain truth is this: I detected Mr. Wesley's forgeries, and chastised the forger. Hinc ille lacrymae. Hence the outcries of John himself, together with those of Thomas Olivers and Walter Sellon. The camp of the Philistines gave a scream, when they saw the levelled stone penetrate the brass of their Goliath's forehead: but of all the tribe, none screamed so loud as the frighted Walter; of whose talent at screaming, a specimen has been exhibited to the reader.”

Augustus Toplady, Introduction, Historic Proof Of The Doctrinal Calvinism Of The Church Of England, Works, Volume 1

John Owen on the Unevangelized

"... we absolutely deny that there is any saving mercy of God towards them (the unevangelized heathen) revealed in the Scripture, which should give us the least intimation of their attaining everlasting happiness. For, not to consider the corruption and universal disability of nature to do anything that is good ('without Christ we can do nothing,' John 15:5), nor yet the sinfulness of their best works and actions, the 'sacrifice of the wicked being an abomination unto the LORD,' Proverbs 15:8 ('Evil trees cannot bring forth good fruit; men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles,' Matthew 7:16-17);—the word of God is plain, that 'without faith it is impossible to please God,' Hebrews 11:6; that 'he that believeth not is condemned,' Mark 16:16; that no nation or person can be blessed but in the Seed of Abraham, Genesis 12:3. And the 'blessing of Abraham' comes upon the Gentiles only 'through Jesus Christ,' Galatians 3:14. He is 'the way, the truth, and the life,' John 14:6. 'None cometh to the Father but by him.' He is the 'door,' by which those that do not enter are 'without,' with 'dogs and idolaters,' Revelation 22:15. So that 'other foundation' of blessedness 'can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ,' I Corinthians 3:11. In brief, do but compare these two places of St. Paul, Romans 8:30, where he showeth that none are glorified but those that are called; and Romans 10:14-15, where he declares that all calling is instrumentally by the preaching of the word and gospel; and it will evidently appear that no salvation can be granted unto them on whom the Lord hath so far poured out his indignation as to deprive them of the knowledge of the sole means thereof, Christ Jesus. And to those that are otherwise minded, I give only this necessary caution,—Let them take heed, lest, whilst they endeavour to invent new ways to heaven for others, by so doing, they lose the true way themselves" John Owen, A Display of Arminianism, Chapter 11

Toplady on Conditional Redemption

“What think you of conditional redemption? ...We are gravely told by some, that ‘Christ did indeed die; but he did not die absolutely, nor purchase forgiveness and eternal life for us certainly: his death only puts us into a salvable state; making God placable, and pardon possible.’ The whole efficacy of his sufferings, according to these persons, depends on our being towardly and complying: which if we are, we then come in for a share in the subsidiary and supplementary merits of Christ; having first qualified ourselves for his aid, by a performance of certain conditions required on our part, and entitled ourselves to the favour and notice of God. According to this scheme (which is only the religion of nature spoiled;—spoiled by an injudicious mixture of nominal Christianity), the adorable Mediator, instead of having actually obtained eternal redemption for his people, and secured the blessings of grace and glory to those for whom he died; is represented as bequeathing to them only a few spiritual lottery-tickets, which may come up, blanks or prizes, just as the wheel of chalice and human caprice happens to turn. Our own righteousness and endeavours, must first make the scale of eternal life preponderate in our favour; and then, the merits of Christ are thrown in, to make up good weight. The Messiah's obedience and sufferings stand it seems, for mere ciphers; until our own freewill is so kind as to prefix the initial figure, and render them of value.—I tremble at the shocking consequences of a system, which (as one well observes) considers the whole mediation of Christ as no more than a pedestal, on which human worth may stand exalted: nay, (to use the language of another) which sinks the Son of God—how shall I speak it?—‘into a spiritual huckster, who, having purchased certain blessings of his Father, sells them out afterwards to men upon terms and conditions.’” - A Caveat Against Unsound Doctrines

If You Don't Like What Scripture Says, Cry, "Paradox."

"This author seems to swell in the conceit of his rational performances, as if never any fly sitting upon a cart wheel on a summer's day had made such a dust as he had made. And fashioning to himself a victorious conquest, as if all his adversaries were but Pygmies to this Anakim, glad to run into corners or into acorn-cups to hide themselves there. For his reasons like some hobgoblins do so fright them more than all the spirits that stand by the naked man in the book of moons: and therefore all the help they have, if we believe this Pyrgopolynices * is to charm them by saying that 'many things delivered in Scripture, which are above the reach of human capacity, among which this is one, etc…'" – William Twisse, The Riches of God's Love unto the Vessels of Mercy...

The book which I am citing is a refutation by William Twisse of the work a Mr. Hord, an Arminian who, true to form, took issue with the Reformed doctrine of Reprobation. At the heart of the doctrine of Predestination (in its two branches, Election and Reprobation), is the question of Divine Sovereignty and human responsibility. 

Beyond the ornate 17th century rhetoric, Twisse is making an incredible point. Notice what the defense of the Arminians of Twisse’s day was: “Paradox!” When they didn’t want to accept the plain words of Scripture, the appeal was made to mystery as a way to kill the discussion. “How can God be sovereign if men have autonomous free-will?” Instead of accepting the plain teaching of Scripture that God is sovereign and men do not have autonomous free-will, because their wills are enslaved by sin, they cry up mystery in order to shut down the conversation. “How can God be love if He has not willed the salvation of everyone?” – Don’t worry; you don't have to face a hard question and actually use your brain to exegete Scripture properly. No, you can just yell, “Paradox,” and all the bad Reformers will go away. No one is allowed to appeal to Scripture once the “paradox card” has been played. 

Notice also that Twisse is not impressed by this paltry argument. He flouts the argument as if its adherents were some silly Don Quixote attacking a windmill, - trying to get God off a hook He does not want off of.

More often than not, the "paradox card" gets played today under the guise of "paradox." There is no doubt that the Bible contains rhetorical paradoxes, that is, statements in which another idea is challenged in a way which startles the reader. But we must deny that Scripture contains logical paradoxes. It has been in vogue to affirm that Scripture contains logical paradoxes since Barth and the heyday of neo-orthodoxy. We ask, “Does God speak to us in logical contradictions?” Does God say one thing which contradicts, or at least appears to contradict something else He has said? No, says the apostle Paul, “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33).

So back to the question of Divine Sovereignty and human responsibility. Is this really a paradox which cannot ever be understood? John Gerstner didn’t think so. He wrote, “We do not see why it is impossible for God to predestinate an act to come to pass by means of the deliberate choice of specific individuals” (A Predestination Primer, 26).

The Westminster Confesstion of Faith didn't take it to be a paradox either. It is important to say this because William Twisse was the Prolocutor (Moderator) as that Assembly. The Confession states, “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established” (WCF, III, 1). In III.8 the Confession calls this doctrine a “high mystery,” which means that it is difficult to grasp, but it does not call it “paradox,” meaning impossible to reconcile. The Confession goes on to say that the doctrine should be “handled with special prudence and care.” 

This love affair with paradox goes back to Karl Barth and his “Theology of Paradox,” as Kantzer called it. Therefore this assertion of logical paradoxes in Scripture has its roots in neo-orthodoxy. You will remember that in neo-orthodoxy, Scripture is NOT the word of God, but rather contains it. Hence, Barth can claim that the Bible is nothing more that the vulnerable words of men, who were fallible and erring in their writings (C.D. 1:2:507ff). In Barth's view, it is beneath God's dignity to reveal Himself in lowly propositional statements. Therefore we are bound to encounter paradox and contradiction when we read Scripture. For him, of course, that is OK because he thinks that God's “truth” can be conveyed even in error. The logical paradoxes so fondly adhered to by modern opponents of a solid “Westminster” theology are the result of faulty exegesis. They are not the fault of the Bible. 

Twisse wrote this complaint in the 1600s. I dare say things haven't changed.

* Pyrgopolynices is a swaggering, braggart soldier in Miles Gloriosus, a comedic play written by Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254–184 B.C.)

Refuting Arminian Objections to Limited Atonement (Part3)

Finally, we will take up the final major objection

Objection 4. Doesn't Christ have as much efficacy to save as to damn? (see Romans 5:17)

Answer 1. There is a difference between a necessary extension and a voluntary one. Adam's sin was extensive necessarily. But salvation by Christ is of free grace, wholly of God's pleasure, and therefore it is called the "free gift" (Romans 5:15).

2. Nowhere in Scripture is Christ compared to Adam in the extent of His object, but only in the efficacy of His obedience. All, and everyone, are not in Christ radically, as they were in Adam. All are not given to Christ; but "as many (says Christ) as Thou has given Me." As all the offspring of Adam fell by his sin, so all that are Christ's are saved by His death; as all that are in Adam die, so all that are in Christ are made alive (1Corinthians 15:22).

3. So that Paul would not be misunderstood, and the word "all" in Romans 5:18 be taken universally, he switches terms in the following verse, and replaces "all" with "many." "By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

Objection 5. In Romans 14:15, it is said, "destroy not him for whom Christ died." And in 2 Peter 2:1, people are described as "denying the Lord that bought them."

Answer 1. Everlasting destruction cannot be intended by the word destroy in Romans 14:15, and the context shows this. Throughout chapter 14, Paul is exhorting the believing Romans not to condemn one another on account of things indifferent; nor to destroy the weak believer's peace of mind by doing anything (which although it might be indifferent, and not evil in itself) that might become a stumbling-block to him. Paul says, " I am persuaded that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth anything unclean, to him it is unclean. If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not" (by your eating meat your brother considers unclean) the peace of mind of one of the weaklings of that flock "for which Christ died." Don't put a stumbling-block, or an occasion of falling in your weak brother's way (Romans 14:13-15). "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offense" (1 Corinthians 10:31,32). 1 Corinthians 8 basically asserts the same thing.

2. Those spoken of in 2 Peter 2:1, as "denying the Lord that bought them," are described by the apostle as, "false teachers" - hypocritical professors, tares among the wheat (Matthew 13:25,38). These people had not been bought and redeemed by Christ from eternal death; they had merely abstained from the pollutions of the world through a theoretical knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 2:20). They made an outward profession of the gospel, through which outward morality they associated with the people of God and were taken into the church. They then secretly introduced damnable heresies into the church. Many followed them, and therefore the way of truth was evil spoken of. At some point, they were either exposed or simply returned back into the world. All this time they were "goats" and not "sheep;" ravening wolves, not gentle lambs. And as Peter closes the chapter concerning them, he says, "It is happened to them according to the true proverb. The dog is turned to its own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire" (2 Peter 2:1-3, 17-22).

3. Peter (2 Peter 2:1) does not appear to be speaking here of the purchase of the Redeemer's blood. The name or title, Lord (Greek, depotes), is not used anywhere in the New Testament in reference to Jesus, but only to the Father, as in Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Timothy 2:22; and especially in Jude 1:4. Here "the only Lord God" is distinguished from "our Lord Jesus Christ." And even if it could be proven to apply to Christ in the above text, it may be explained upon the principle that it is not uncommon with the writers of Scripture to speak of things not as they actually are, but according to the profession of the party referred to. For instance, (Matthew 13:12): "Whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath" in other words, that "which he seemeth to have," as it is explained in Luke 8:18. So apostates may said to be "twice dead," which would seem to imply that they had been spiritually alive, though in fact that was never the case, but merely what they professed to be.

4. Based upon this we can say that even if we grant the premises, it only follows that such as think themselves redeemed, or are thought so by others, may blaspheme and perish. This does not make all the world redeemed. This certainly cannot establish the doctrine of Universal Redemption.

Refuting Arminian Objections to Limted Atonement (Part 2)

Objection 3. In John 3:16, and in 1 John 2:2, it is said that God gave Christ for the "world," and for the sins of the "whole world;" which must be taken literally.

Answer 1. The word "world" is has various significations. A decree went out that "all the world should be taxed" (Luke 2:1), that is, the Roman empire and the countries which were subject to it. The faith of the church of Rome was "spoken of throughout the whole world" (Romans 1:8), that is, throughout all the churches, and among all the saints in the world. The Pharisees said of Christ, "Behold, the world is gone after Him" (John 12:19), by which we find that they meant the multitudes who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus, crying, "Hosanna" (John 12:12,13). The Pharisees themselves, who said this, hadn't gone after Christ. The whole world couldn't have gone, since they didn't and are part of the whole world. The same applies to John 3:16: "God so loved the world" cannot be understood of the world in a strict sense, since this would include birds, cows, chickens and trout, not to mention all inanimate objects, such as stones and quicksand pits. None of these can have everlasting life. Nor can it mean the world of men, but only as God is the Preserver of both man and beast (Psalms 31:6). There is God's love to creatures, His love to men, and His love to good men. God's love was the cause of His sending Christ, and the word "whosoever" (in the verse) restrains this love of God to some and not to others. It must therefore be properly God's love to good men - not those He found good, but those He made good.

2. There is a world of believers (Revelation 5:9). Just as manna was only for Israel, likewise Christ, the true manna, the Bread from Heaven, is only for the world of believers (John 6:33). Christ was believed on in the world of believers only (1 Timothy 3:16); the reconciled world (2 Corinthians 5:19): and "all men have not faith" (2 Thessalonians 3:2). There is also the world of unbelievers. "All the world wondered after the beast." And, "they worshipped the dragon" (Revelation 13:3, 4). "The whole world lieth in wickedness" (1J ohn 5:19). The believing world is a world in the world ("these are in the world," John 17:11); and they are taken and chosen out of the world. They are in the world, sojourning among its inhabitants as strangers and pilgrims. This is not their rest, their home. They are waiting for a better country (Hebrews 11:13-16). Those who are chosen out of the world and given to Christ, are clear from John 15:19: "If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore, the world hateth you." John 17:6, 9 says, "I have manifested Thy Name unto the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world . . . I pray for them; I pray not for the world."

3. It may be granted that God has a "love" for all mankind. "We trust," says Paul, "in the living God, who is the Savior," i.e., the Preserver, "of all men, especially of those that believe" (1 Timothy 4:10). "The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works" (Psalms 145:9). "He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good; and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:45). None of this implies eternal preservation, but only temporal providence and preservation. All that are redeemed are redeemed by Christ; but the elect only are given to Him; only they have, as the Puritans used to call it, an interest in Him. They alone are redeemed by Him. And only they will be glorified with Him.

4. The word "world" is sometimes used in Scripture for the Gentiles in contradistinction from the Jews. An example of this is 1 John 2:2. John wrote to the Jews, and ministered unto the circumcision (see Galatians 2:9), and he says to them, "Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," that is, not for the Jews only, but for the Gentiles also. The Jewish nation considered themselves as the peculiar people of God; and so they were, for to them "pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises." And Christ was a Jew, "of whom concerning the flesh Christ came" (Romans 9:4, 5). The Jews were always taught that the Messiah applied exclusively to them. The Gentiles were utterly rejected. They were called "strangers," "uncircumcised," "common," "unclean," "dogs," etc. It was unlawful for a Jew to keep company or have any dealings with a Gentile (see Matthew 10:5; Mark 7:17; Acts 10:28, and Acts 11:3). The salvation of the Gentiles is in various parts of Scripture called a "mystery," a "hidden mystery;" the "mystery of Christ which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men ... that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs" (Ephesians 3:4-6; Colossians 1:27). But when this mystery was revealed and made fully known by Paul's mission, sent as he was by Christ to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 26:17,18), and when it was declared by the vision of the unclean beasts and the Lord's commission to Peter (Acts 10:9-15, 20), then the contentions of the circumcision ceased (Acts 11:2, 3). They found that "the middle wall of partition" between Jew and Gentile was "broken down." The Gentiles who had been "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise," were now "brought nigh by the blood of Christ." They glorified God saying, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Jesus Christ is not only the propitiation for the sins of us Jews, but for the Gentiles also (Ephesians 2:11-18).

5. The foregoing point is further proven by Romans 11:12, where the two words, "world" and "Gentiles," are both used as signifying one and the same thing. "If the fall of them (the Jews) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?" There was a considerable controversy among the Jewish rabbis whether, when the Messiah came, the Gentiles, the 'world' would benefit. Most of them thought that this was not the case. Simeon was a notable exception. He knew that Christ would be 'a light to lighten the Gentiles,' as well as 'the glory of His people of Israel.' Most of the rabbis "concluded that the most severe judgments and dreadful calamities would befall the Gentiles; yea, that they should be cast into hell, in the room of the Israelites" (John Gill).

Refuting Arminian Objections to Limited Atonement (Part 1)

Arminians have always had their objections to the Reformed doctrine of Limited Atonement - or as it is sometimes known - Particular Redemption. Essentially this doctrine tells us that Christ's death was an atonement paid particularly for the Elect alone. Whether or not Christ's death has any reference or effect upon those who are not elect is of little importance. He did not die for everyone equally in the same way. Scripture is plain that Christ died for His Church, for His sheep. Not everyone is a member of His Church; not everyone is a sheep. Christ told some of His listeners, to their faces, that they were not of His sheep. Arminians claim that we limit the power of the atonement by not letting it apply to all men equally. We say they limit it even more so by evacuating its efficacy. Calvinism says Christ died to save His people from their sins. Ariminianism says that Christ's death made salvation possible for all men. Nevermind the obvious problem that if Christ died for all men's sins equally, then no one should go to Hell, since salvation necessarily entails forgiveness of sins; but think of the more serious ramification of saying Christ died for what turns out to be a lost cause for millions of souls.

As I noted, Arminians have put forward objections to this doctrine. I intend to tackle the main ones, and give several answers to them from Scripture.

Objection 1. What everyone is bound to believe must be true, and it is the duty of all men to believe; therefore Christ must have died for all men.

Answer 1. OK, suppose we grant this position, wouldn't the doctrine of discriminating love be destroyed by this? What comfort would it be to a soul in distress or trial to believe that Christ died for him in the same way that He did for Judas and all the damned souls in hell?

2. The people to whom the Gospel has never come, they who have never heard of the death of Christ, are not going to believe that Christ died for them (missionary endeavor excepted, of course). What God reveals is true; but God has nowhere revealed that it was His intention that Judas would believe, or that all will believe. God made His covenant with Abraham's descendants. The Canaanites never heard the message of God's grace. They were, nonetheless, destroyed for their sins.

3. Not everyone has the Gospel preached to them. This is what I alluded to above in referring to the Canaanites. But more than that, many to whom it is preached only hear it with the outward ear. In other words, it makes no impression upon their souls unto salvation. They do not sense their state as sinners. They are not weary and heavy laden because of sin. The Gospel proclamation of redemption through Christ's blood is not a joyful sound to them. They don't think they need it. True repentance is the gift of free grace and faith is the gift of God. What is God's, as a gift to bestow, cannot be man's duty to perform as a condition of salvation. Those who are invited to look to Christ, to come to Him for salvation, Scripture describes as weary and heavy laden with sin, penitent, hungry and thirsty, etc. They are invited to come to and believe in Christ, and not all men (Matthew 11:28; Isa 55:1; Mark 2:17).

Objection 2. The words "all" and "every," often used in Scripture, must be taken universally.

Answer 1. The proper way to take "All" and "every" is not in the sense of a universal - for every man individually, in the commonly quoted scriptures. They are to be taken distributively, meaning "of all kinds or types," rather than "every individual." For instance, in Matthew 9:35, we are told that Christ went about healing every sickness and every disease among the people: that is, any and every kind of disease. Christ did not heal every single sick person in Judaea. Also in Colossians 1:28, where "every" is taken distributively three times, and so must be restricted to those to whom Paul preached.

2. "All" in 1 Timothy 2:4, cannot be taken for every man individually, since it is not the will of God that all men in this large sense should be saved: for it is His will that some men should be damned, and justly at that, for their sins and transgressions. Unto some men it will be said, "Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." If God wills all men to be saved, then all men will be saved, for "He (God) doeth according to His will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth" (Daniel 4:35). God does not fail. He cannot be disappointed in His own will, for He works all things after the counsel of it. Then again in Hebrews 2:9, Jesus is said to "taste death for every [man];" which is in the very next verse restricted to "sons brought to glory." Hebrews 2:11 calls them "sanctified" ones. 1 Timothy 2:6 ("who gave Himself a ransom for all") is rendered in the parallel text Titus 2:14, "who gave Himself for us." Who are the people called "us" in this text? Are they not particularized as "redeemed from all iniquity, purified and made a peculiar people?" Christ gave Himself as a ranson for "all" who fit this description, and for none else. David said, "All men are liars." Take that word in the Arminian sense and you will have made David a liar for saying so.

Doctrinal Pet Peeve

One of my pet peeves is when people claim that they are neither Calvinist nor Arminian. There is so much wrong with that statement that I don’t even know where to begin. First of all it assumes that two mutually exclusive claims can both be true. This is patently false. Believe in both/and propositions all you want, you and the semi truck cannot both cross the intersection at the same time without grave consequences. There is only truth and error. There is only life or death.

More importantly, this statement reveals a fundamental ignorance of what both sides actually represent. What baffles me about this is that the statement itself implies a knowledge of both sides and a fair amount of study.

Before going any further, I should perhaps clarify at least a few things about both sides so that my point becomes clear. First of all, the distinction between Calvinist and Arminian, although other things are logical consequents of the respective positions, is a distinction regarding the doctrine of salvation: i.e., How is one saved? Even without delineating what either side believes, it should be clear that this is an important issue. Doctrine is important. It does matter what you believe, especially when it come to the question of how one is saved.

The person who makes this claim is typically one who eschews theological terminology. This in itself is problematic. No one comes to the Bible without a set of presuppositions. When someone says, “It’s just me and my Bible,” that person is invincibly ignorant. How do you reason with someone who refuses admit their presuppositions.

Calvinists aver that all men are dead in sin, thus no one is capable or willing to repent and believe savingly in Christ unless God first enable them by regeneration. Salvation is of the Lord. One becomes a Christian, not by a decision for Christ, but because God has resurrected them from the death of sin and given them faith to trust in the imputed righteousness of Christ who died as an atonement for their sins. Since Christ actually died to save them, and since they did not earn their salvation by any works of righteousness (including repentance and faith), their salvation is eternally secure because Christ has promise to not lose any of those given Him of the Father. Arminians place great emphasis on man’s supposed free-will. Further they affirm that one becomes a Christian by choosing, of their own uncompelled free-will, to believe in Christ. Moreover they believe that Christ’s death, rather than actually paying for their sins, makes it possible for God to forgive them. As a result, any lapse in Christian character endangers one’s salvation.

The difference is night and day. I am a Calvinist – unashamedly so. I am infuriated however when someone makes the ignorant remark that I follow a man rather than Christ. After all, didn’t Paul warn the Corinthians of saying they followed Apollos or Paul? The reason that is an ignorant statement is because Paul and Apollos were NOT teaching differing schemes of doctrine. Had Apollos been teaching salvation by works, Paul would’ve called him a heretic that the Corinthians needed to avoid like the plague. The issue at Corinth was not different theological parties represented by different teachers. The issue was petty, immature, schismatic sectarianism with no regard to actual doctrine.

Arminianism is always concerned that unless a person is saved as a result of a conscious free-will decision, then he has no incentive to live a holy life. Not only is this patently false, but it impugns the wisdom of God. If salvation is a regeneration – a real translation from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of His dear Son – then it will produce a change in character. We needn’t bother ourselves with taking things into our own hands to make sure they get done properly. God is entirely capable. In fact Jude tells us, “Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen” (Jude 24-25).

But there is another thing that this statement ignores. There are no other options. You either think you are saved solely by the sovereign power and choice of God or you think you play some part in the decision. There is no third option. That is why I said earlier that there is only life and death. A living person is not a corpse, nor is a corpse living. There are no shades of existence between the two options. Simply put, any attempt to ride the fence places one squarely in Arminianism.

Self-Resurrecting Dead

“Arise, ye dead,” Arminius cries;

Arise, ye dead in sin!

Unstop your ears, unseal your eyes

And a new life begin.

Why will ye die, ye wretched souls?

Ye dead, why will ye die?

Quicken and make your spirits whole;

to life eternal fly.”

As Baal’s worshippers of old,

begg’d, pray’d, and cry’d aloud;

cutting their bodies, as we are told,

to move a fancied god;

so on the idol man he’ll call,

and pompously declare,

though slightly damaged by the fall,

how great his powers are.

“Rise, noble creature! Man, arise!

And make yourself alive!

Prepare yourself to mount the skies;

For endless glory strive.”

Deluded Seer! But man will lie

Still senseless as a stone;

And you yourself stand fooling by,

‘till both are quite undone:

Unless Almighty power be mov’d

By God’s free-will, not thine,

To quicken both, and make his love

On both your hearts to shine.

Serious Essays, in verse, Rev. John Ryland Jr.

How Christ Limits the Atonement 4

Today we will conclude, for the time being, our look at the nature and extent of the atonement. We must first hasten to reiterate that the two things, nature and extent, are intimately connected. As we have asserted and will further assert, the nature of the atonement defines its extent.

Answering the question “Who are the objects of Christ's atonement?” would have been much simpler had men been satisfied with the statements of Scripture and the ideas derived from these statements of Scripture. The atonement is simply coextensive, as far as its saving effects are concerned, with the number of true believers. This should have been the last word, and indeed would have been, were it not for men who, being driven less by religious convictions than by speculative tendencies, deemed it necessary to extend the atonement to all men alike. Rather than contenting themselves with the Scriptural revelation that the atonement was coextensive with it effects, they insisted that it be coextensive with the entire human race, and for each member equally.

This brings us full circle to something I said at the outset of our discussion, that the issue at stake when this subject is broached is that what is really being questioned is not the extent of the atonement, but rather its nature. One need only to look at the various universalist theories to see that this is, in fact, the case.

There are four basic categories of universalist theories.

A. The thorough-going theory of universal salvation; that is, the belief that in virtue of Christ's work, all men will ultimately be saved. The only good thing that can be said about this theory is that it carries its presuppositions through to their logical consequences. It affirms that the actual restoration attained by Christ is coextensive with the actual ruin of the race. It overlooks justice simply falls back on a fuzzy idea of Divine benevolence. Though it is completely and utterly unscriptural, it is at least self-consistent.

B. Arminianism is the second universalist theory. It is far less consistent than the above theory. Its trademark is the notion of universal grace. This affirms that the atonement made by Christ was coextensive with the whole of humanity, whether they believe it or not. By looking only at one side of the equation, they completely undermine the atonement as a valid fact. By holding that on God's side the remedy is as universal as the disease they lose in at the center what they gain in breadth. The atonement does not actually secure anything; it merely makes possible the salvation of man who, of his own free-will, chooses to believe. At bottom, it is tantamount to saying that the atonement made it possible for man to save himself.

C. The Amyraldist view of universal grace, while differing in some respects from the Arminian scheme, has the same fatal flaw at its center. This theory asserts that because of God's love to fallen men He appointed Christ as a mediator for every single individual human being – and that by this means all barriers on the side of Divine justice have been removed. Salvation is thus said to have been made possible, but it adds the condition which switches the application of it to God's sovereign will: it is for all if they believe. It should be obvious that this theory alters the nature of the atonement. It holds that Christ, by His own intention and the Father's purpose, died for everyone, that a salvation was purchased for everyone though not applied to everyone. Moreover, the atonement, though not actually securing redemption or faith - by causal connection, made it possible for God to bestow salvation on anyone He pleased and to form a new covenant of grace with humanity in general. Thus the atonement is not a transaction in its own nature, involving a covenant or substitution and securing its own application. Again, note that, like Arminianism, this theory falsely assumes that a limitation to the extent of the atonement is somehow a limitation to the power of God and the love of God.

D. Finally, there is a form of the universalist theory that is not the result of any philosophical speculation at all. It is little more that an uninformed and roundabout way of representing the universal call of the Gospel. Preachers of this theory (which is not even really a theory, as such) are content to say that Christ died for all men without ever working out the ramifications of such a statement. They never think through the logical consequences and all they really mean is that the invitation, when it is given by the preacher, is given to all alike. Many good men, under a confused impression, express themselves in this way without ever considering or investigating that their universal call must have a universal provision underlying it. They never ponder that, regarding the completeness of the atonement, it is necessary that the three involved parties (the Father, the Surety, and the man needing salvation) concur. There must be a consent of all the concerned parties. The sinner's exercise of faith must be seen as his approval of this method of salvation and his consent to it. This was signified in the Old Testament when the worshiper laid his hand on the head of the sacrifice demonstrating his consent to this form of expiation and confessing his sins onto the animal victim.

Proponents of this last form of universal atonement, generally assume that to believe in Christ is equivalent to believing that Christ died for us. These two are not the same thing. The first mental act is an apprehension of a sufficient Savior; the second is an inference from this. First of all, no one is called to believe that Christ died for him any more than he is required to believe that his sins are pardoned before he believes. Conversely, regarding the responsibility for rejecting the Gospel, the condemnation or punishment is due to the sinner's refusal to accept a sufficient Redeemer and accept this way of salvation. He rejects the idea and method of it, whereas faith is the acceptance and approval of it. The sinner concurs and signifies his concurrence by faith, demonstrating that he approves of this way of salvation and desires to be saved in no other way. Then all concerned parties are concurred.

Those who promote an indefinite atonement make the whole transaction complete without man's consent. I fail to see what conceivable advantage is gained by making the atonement wider that the number of those who approve of it and are willing to be saved by it.

These theories fall apart when we allow Christ to define the nature of the atonement, because the real question is its nature not its extent. Once the nature is defined, the question of the extent answers itself.

Necessity and Volition Are Not Mutually Exclusive

Necessity and volition are not as opposed to each other as Arminians like to think. In fact, if Scripture is any authority on the matter, these two things are not opposed or exclusive of each other at all.

Here is a case in point; in fact this is the best possible case ever: Jesus was necessarily holy. It was absolutely and intrinsically inevitable that He be holy in every aspect of His life and perfectly righteous in all His actions. Secondly, it was absolutely necessary that He should die for the sins of the elect. Christ was so necessarily good that is was impossible for Him to be otherwise, notwithstanding, He was voluntarily good. That is why He could say, “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work (John 4:34). Secondly, He could not avoid being put to death as an offering for the sins of the elect. Nevertheless, He died voluntarily. He said, “how am I straitened till it be accomplished! (Luke 12:50). And also, “I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:17-18).

If this is not enough proof that necessity and volition are not mutually exclusive, nothing is. You may ask how this can be. Our only answer can be that it holds by the wise ordaining of God, who is great in counsel (Jer. 32:19). A true Christian will be satisfied with this answer.

It is safe to assume that very few Arminians, if any, would ever assert that is was possible for Christ to have fallen from grace by sin and to have perished eternally. But, as shocking as that notion is, it is an absolutely necessary consequence of the Arminian doctrine of contingency, whether any Arminian admits, acknowledges or avows it or not.

The Red Herring of Antinomian Calvinism

The favorite weapon in the Arminian arsenal against Calvinism is the accusation that the perseverance of the saints leads to antinomianism. Their logic, or rather illogic, runs thus: If a man knows that nothing he can possibly do can imperil his salvation, he will live without restraint. Why should a man bother about living a holy life if he can be saved no matter how he lives? This is, of course a libel and a red herring. 

Continuing to live in sin once one has died to it is no more logical than to try to live in a house after you’ve sold it. A death row inmate set free, but who refused to leave his cell, would still be legally free even if he didn’t walk in it experientially. His not leaving the cell would not argue against his freedom, but against his understanding of Freedom. This is the situation of one who is saved but continues in sin. His freedom is not lost or retracted, but it might as well have not been granted. This would, in fact, never happen in the real world. Its opposite, however, is the actual state of every unregenerate man. Adam alone would have retained memory of his former state of Original Righteousness; the rest of us have been born in prison. Our natural enmity toward God causes us to deceive ourselves into imagining we are free when, in fact, we are in bondage. It is a billion times easier psychologically to convince yourself that you are free when you are not (sort of a moral “Stockholm Syndrome”), than to convince yourself that you are bound when you are actually free. There is nothing to motivate that delusion.

So to get caught up on the question of whether salvation can be lost or not (although the Reformed side is definitely correct), is to miss the whole point. The hypothetical “Christian” who accepts the Lord as Savior and then proceeds to live a life of sin based on the assurance that once he is saved, he can never sin away his salvation, is no Christian at all. We would deny the very existence of such a person. Scripture categorically denies that those who willfully persist in sin were ever elected in the first place because we are elected through sanctification unto obedience. This is “putting God to the test,” and no Christian would ever do this! What kind of “Christian” makes this hypothetical experiment to see whether or not he really can remove himself from Christ’s hand? The notion is simply asinine. This is like a pardoned death-row inmate trying to see whether he can still get executed!

This false conclusion overlooks the following:

1. A Christian has a renewed nature.

The Christian life itself begins with death to the old life. It is when we are made partakers of the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). Moreover, the Christian life works from the inside out.

2. Justification is more than mere forgiveness of sins. This is the mistake Whitefield pointed out in Wesley’s theology. Justification is a change of status before God: from “in sin” to “in Christ.” We are translated from the power of darkness to the kingdom of Christ. Hence it is a change wrought in us by God whereby we are changed from in sin to in Him. It may even be considered a change of citizenship (Colossians 1:13).

3. There is a difference between a lapse in Christian character and living in sin.

It would be false to assert that a Christian will never lapse (David, Peter, etc.). However, equating a lapse in Christian character and an ongoing living in sin will always result in an absolute lack of assurance of salvation. We all know people who fear that God will strike them dead with a lightning bolt every time they mess up. I have seen men who have been elders and deacons for decades respond to every altar the pastor gives just in case the previous one didn't take! How can a man be of any service to Christ’s kingdom when he isn’t even sure if he’s in it? It dishonors God when we cower in fear when we sin rather than coming boldly before the throne of grace. Christ commanded us to forgive 70x7 a day! Can we expect less of Him than He commands of us?

4. Justification by nature leads to Sanctification.

The whole point of the New Covenant is to ensure holiness (Jer. 31:31-33). God justifies only those He intends to sanctify (Rom. 8:29, 30). The order is “justified by faith,” not “justified by sanctification.” The latter error gives birth to the objection Paul refutes in this passage! Thomas Manton aptly remarks, “Therefore it is a desperate adventure to try conclusions, to drink rank poison to experiment the goodness of an antidote, or to wound ourselves mortally to try the virtue of a plaster.”

When Wesley flung this accusation of antinomianism at the Calvinists of his day, Augustus Toplady replied:

“Consciousness of guilt, and dread of detection, frequently put bad men upon entering those accusations against their opponents, which, without such a timely precaution, they are justly apprehensive, will be charged upon themselves, like the apostate spirits in Milton, who were turning their own torments into weapons against heaven. Such is the prudent conduct of very many Arminians. Fully aware, that their own lives are none of the best, they affect to cry out against Calvinism, as though she was the very mother and nurse of licentiousness. Were she really so, what myriads would desert the standard of Arminius, and flock to the banner of Calvin! But all those who are capable of discernment, know, that the pretended licentious tendency of Calvinism (so called) is no more than idle flourish and empty declamation. Were the doctrines of grace unfavorable to strict morality, we should quickly see them the reigning system of the age. On the contrary, they are therefore, at present, unfashionable, because they make no allowance for the wickedness of the wicked. It is a fundamental axiom, with us, who abide by the principles of the Reformation, that holiness of heart and life is (not the cause, price, or condition, but which adds infinitely stronger security to the interests of moral virtue) and essential and inseparable part of that very salvation, to which the elect were chosen from everlasting. A Calvinist must consequently, renounce both the letter and the spirit of his own constitutive principles (i.e., he must cease to be a Calvinist), ere he can, consistently, degenerate into a sensualist.”

Universal Grace is Cruelty

It’s time to turn a myth on its head. Arminians of the last 450 years and the Pelagians before them have always appealed to their doctrine of Universal Grace as a sign of God’s goodwill toward men. The Augustinian or Calvinistic scheme of a limited grace for the elect alone, they claim is unjust and unkind. How, they ask, can a loving God predestinate men to live in unrepentant sin, and then punish them with eternal hellfire for doing what was predestined? There’s nary a Pelagian or Arminian in the world who hasn’t pulled this stunt at some time in a debate with a Calvinist.

Let’s dispatch with the niceties. First of all, the objection is a gross mischaracterization of the facts to begin with. It is built on the assumption that the divine decree and human responsibility are incompatible. This is patently false and we know so because Scripture plainly teaches so. Anyone who doesn’t see this is reading with their eyes closed. Judas Iscariot, we are told, did what was foretold of him, yet Christ says it would have been better for him to have never been born, thus expressing Judas’ culpability. Herod and Pilate had a hand in executing Christ, but both did what God’s decree had ordained. Scripture is replete with examples which demonstrate this, both from positive and negative perspectives.

But that isn’t what we’re interested in right now. I wish to show you that the chimerical Arminian objection is more accurately a depiction of its own principles. To show this, let’s go back to the Arminian doctrine of Universal Grace and ask a question. Does God know, or does He not know beforehand how everyone will respond to His grace? In other words: Does God know who will accept and who will reject it? The only possible answers are “Yes,” or “No.” If you say “No,” you are an atheist, regardless of what you call yourself. A God who is not omniscient is no God at all. Open Theism is thinly veiled atheism, as is its mother Arminianism.

Right about now I anticipate someone objecting that Open Theism is not necessarily an Arminian issue. After all, Thomas Oden decries Open Theism as heresy. I have looked at the subject from every possible angle and there is no way you can convince me that Open Theism is not the legitimate offspring of Arminianism. The whole reason for dreaming up Open Theism in the first place was to make a way for God’s knowledge to square with the Arminian conception of free-will. Toss Arminian free-will back in the pit that it came from, and the need for an Open view of God dissipates.

Back to my question. If you answer, “Yes, God knows unmistakably who will accept His grace and who will reject it,” then we have a bigger problem. Your system entails this uncomfortable consequence: God, fully aware that such and such a person will unfailingly and willfully persist in sin, rejecting God’s grace till his dying day, thrusts this grace upon him anyway, thus amplifying his guilt a million times. Where is the love of God now? This is nothing but unmitigated cruelty and hatred. Offering grace and atonement to one whom God know will only spurn it, is an intentional exacerbating of their sin. If the Arminian deity had any love at all, He would withhold the grace He knows will be rejected. In other words, if the Arminian deity had any love at all, He’d be the God of the Bible who is best expressed in Calvinistic terms. Can we suppose that God is even earnest when He offers grace to those He knows will refuse it?

The Arminian replies, “But this makes takes away man’s excuse for sinfulness.” Let’s assume for a moment that this is true. Ok, it takes away man’s excuse. But this means that God knowingly makes a man more inexcusable because He loves that man so much.

Predestinated to Obedience

“Predestination leads to antinomianism,” goes the tired old Arminian objection. They have never gotten tired of this worn out motto, despite the fact that Dort anathematized it as false and every Reformed theologian worth his weight in feathers has torn it to ribbons. Some people never learn. What saith the Scripture? - - -

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 1 Peter 1:2

Peter says, “foreknowledge of God the Father,” referring to His foreknowledge of the Fall, which foreknowledge made it necessary that election should be decreed to take effect not independently from the Son and Spirit (sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ). This shows us five important truths.

1. All three divine Persons are equally concerned in the salvation of sinners. The Father elected them; the Son shed His blood for them; the Spirit sanctifies them.

2. The objects of election were considered, in that eternal decree, as fallen. How else could they be chosen unto the sprinkling of Christ’s blood and sanctification of the Spirit?

3. Election, though productive of good works, is not founded upon them. On the contrary, they are one of the ends for which the elect are chosen. – “Elect unto obedience.”

4. Those who have been elected by God the Father, shall be sprinkled by the Son, that is, legally purified by His atonement as their pardon. Further they shall experience the Spirit’s sanctification in beginning, advancing and perfecting the work of grace in their souls.

5. The elect, this sprinkled and sanctified, are made to obey the commands of God. They imitate Christ as a pattern as they trust in Him as their propitiation.

An Arminian may seize upon my words “made to obey,” and ask, “Are the elect robots?” No. Of course not. God’s people are made willing (Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power. Ps. 110:3). There is no such thing as a willing robot.

Objections to Reprobation: 2. Isn't God Merciful?

The second objection Arminians make against the doctrine of Reprobation regards the mercy of God. How can God be merciful if He either actively wills the damnation of certain of His creatures without a view to anything in them or if He passes them over as sinners and chooses someone else equally deserving of eternal damnation?

Mercy can be thought of in two ways: as a Divine attribute and as it is exercised toward man. As an attribute of God, it is infinite. All God’s attribute are because they coincide with His Essence. To say that God is just is not that same as saying Todd is just. Todd can cease to be just and still be himself. God’s attributes are at one with His Essence, so that if He were not just, He would not be God. Hence we repeat that as a divine attribute, God’s mercy is infinite.

But mercy, as it exercised toward man, is neither necessarily infinite nor actually infinite. The fact that God did not create more worlds than He has is no indictment of His omnipotence. Likewise, that not all men are saved is no indictment of His mercy. Augustus Toplady writes, “Goodness, considered as it is in God, would have been just the same infinite and glorious attribute, supposing no rational creatures had been created at all, or saved when created. To which may be added, that the goodness of the Deity does not cease to be infinite in itself, only because it is more extended to some objects than it is to others. The infinity of this perfection, as residing in God and coinciding with His Essence, is sufficiently secured, without supposing it to reach indiscriminately, to all creatures He has made. For, was that way of reason to be admitted, it would lead us too far, and prove too much: since, if the infinity of His goodness is to be estimated by the number of objects upon which it terminates; there must be an absolute, proper infinity of reasonable beings to terminate that goodness upon. Consequently, it would follow from such premises, either, that the creation, is as truly infinite as the Creator; or, if otherwise, that the Creator’s goodness could not be infinite, because it has not an infinity of object to make happy.”

If the decree of Reprobation is disproved by the imaginary incompatibility with divine mercy, then we must also charge God with a lack of goodness in almost every other part of His conduct. We spent quite some time proving that assertion in the previous post.

Arminians should therefore think carefully of the logically consequences of their doctrine. There is no way of asserting eternal providence or justifying God’s actions towards humanity except by saying that the exercise of His infinite mercy is regulated by the voluntary determining of His sovereign pleasure. Once this scriptural proposition is established, every objection against Reprobation that is grounded on its being unmerciful ceases to exist. 

Note, I said, “established as scriptural.” Here goes.

In Matthew 11:20-24, Christ reproves the cities that did not believe Him. He goes on to say that had Tyre, Sidon and Sodom seen the mighty deeds they had witnessed, these cities would’ve repented. The logical inference it this: God saw fit to NOT show these cities the very mighty deeds that would have resulted in their repentance. If this does not demonstrate Preterition, nothing does. “Unfair,” you say. Yet in verses 25 and 26, Christ thanks the Father for doing the very thing Arminians exclaim against as unjust and unmerciful. I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Witness further:

“He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.” Matt 13:11

“it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” Matt 20:23

“For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matt 22:14

“for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.” Matt 24:22

“Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:” Matt 25:34

“Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” Mark 4:11-12

“rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.” Luke 10:20

“Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” Luke 12:32

“one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.” Luke 17:34

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me” John 6:37

“ye are not of God.” John 8:47

“ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep” John 10:26

“But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” John 12:37 - 40

“Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you” John 15:16

“Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.” Acts 1:16-20

“Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” Acts 2:23

“Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” Acts 4:27-28

“as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Acts 13:48

“God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace” Gal 1:15

“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” 2 Tim 1:9

“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation” Jude 1:4

Every single one of the above passages contains at least one side of the Election/Reprobation equation. Mention is made of those who are shown special, undeserved favor; hence, demonstrating the passing over of the non-elect. Or mention is made of the decree regarding the reprobation of certain individuals. Here we have multiple Scriptures asserting Election, and by logical consequence, its corollary, Reprobation. And not a single one of these passages even remotely hints at questioning God’s justice or mercy.