Reformed Theology On The Defensive...

Most Arminians (i.e., Wesleyans, Methodists, and those of the opposite persuasion) are not aware of the fact that their patron saint (Jacob Hermann or Jacobus Arminius in Latin) was once a Reformed theologian at a Dutch university who was expelled from his post in disgrace. Reformed theology is the orthodox position, (going back to Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo's, debate with the British monk Pelagius in the 5th century), though we are all born semi-Pelagians or Arminians (they are actually in the majority, even among Evangelical churches) and Martin Luther, formerly an Augustinian monk, wrote a book, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. Luther claimed we are all natural-born semi-Pelagians and we should consequently understand their viewpoint.

Many are in a fog about what Reformed theology is, it is sometimes referred to as Covenant theology, (people call it this to avoid the derogatory term "Calvinist" with its negative connotations). Anglican theologian J. I. Packer says that is more than a set of doctrines to subscribe to, but a "hermeneutic"--a way of seeing and interpreting Scripture in the light of grace, and having a viewpoint from above. I see it as a "mindset" and even a "worldview" because we can see everything in the light of God's grace. Let the Holy Spirit's illuminating ministry open your eyes and I hope you "get it"--a new orientation.

The pill that's hard for some to swallow is that our ultimate destiny is in God's hands (cf. John 6:44, 65; Romans 9:15-16) and we are not in control (Yes, we are at the complete mercy of God who will have mercy on whom He will have mercy) and so they make erroneous conclusions based on their bias. "It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy" (Rom. 9:16). It is written in John 15:16: "I chose you, and you didn't choose me." Ephesians 1:5 says "according to the good pleasure of His will...." Being the elect refers to God's election, not ours! The common belief of prescience is that God conditioned our election on our contingent faith on our belief and thus we did it and are better than the lost, rather than electing us "unto faith." 

The Golden Chain of Redemption in Rom. 8:29-30 militates against prescience if you exegete it. He elected those He foreknew (means to have a personal love-relationship with, not knowing facts about someone). Calvinists adhere to unconditional election based on His purpose and grace and nothing in us is found worthy of it. God doesn't owe us a measure of grace, or it would be justice, not grace! Do you really think you responded to the gospel because you were more virtuous or moral than the unbeliever? Arminians admit they cannot explain why some respond to His wooing and others don't, other than positing that some desire to be saved and others don't (actually the Greek word for wooing is elko and it really means to "drag" someone like into court!). God didn't owe us--He didn't have to save anyone; He'd still be just and holy without doing it!

It seems most people have preconceived notions of Calvinism (which really are "hyper-Calvinism" ideas of "double-predestination" and "reprobation" that they object to or even the doctrine of "election," and for this cause Calvinism gets a bad rap). Calvinism per se is not what John Calvin taught (his teachings about predestination, for example, were sparse), and it was first delineated by the Synod of Dort in 1618 to answer John Preston, John Ball, Caspar Olevianus, Robert Rollock, Zacharias Ursinus, Henry Bullinger, Huldreich Zwingli, John Calvin and Martin Luther with Phillip Melancthon ahead of the game or before the fact, so to speak).

Calvinists are not preoccupied with one doctrine and are not on a mission to convert people to their way of thinking. It only seems that way since they've had a "grace awakening" and become "grace-oriented." It's a wonderful way to see God and our relationship with Him--they get the "can't-help-its" and want to share their faith ("For we can not but speak of what we have heard and seen," cf. Acts 4:20) and open their brother's eyes. Case in point: When I personally became aware of "eternal security" it opened my eyes to a whole new way of interpreting Scripture.

C. H. Spurgeon said that Calvinism (also known commonly by the nomenclature of Reformed theology and Covenant theology, though these terms are not identical) is simply acknowledging that "Salvation is of the Lord" as Jonah testified in the belly of the great fish. Faith is God's gift, but our act (God doesn't believe for us!).  Some believe that faith is a meritorious work and we all know that we are not saved by works in Ephesians 2:8-9. It is easier to see that we owe our faith to our election and not our election to our faith. We are not elected because of our faith, but unto faith (this means the election results in regeneration and faith/repentance and is not caused by it--see 2 Thess. 2:13, Acts 13:48; and 1 John 5:1 in ESV), and this election is, according to the Calvinists, vital to know, as we don't merit our election in any way.   If we could believe apart from regeneration or prior to it, what good is it?  A condition of salvation is to realize we are not worthy.

If we have to do anything for our salvation we will fail, and miserably. The other possibilities are logical "of us alone" and "of us and God together in a joint, cooperative venture (synergism).   If you think about it, the former one is religion, and the latter is legalism. The only way of grace is by God alone and we can be sure this way (no human element involved to vary): Man is incurably addicted to doing something for his salvation according to Chuck Swindoll! We just receive it by faith and that faith is God's gift. If we have to do a work for salvation we will fail, and at that miserably. What's the joy in not knowing you are saved or that you have to do something to be accepted in the Beloved? Nehemiah 8:10 says: "The joy of the LORD is your strength." This is because there is a difference between the conjecture of the Arminian versus the certitude of the Calvinist--viva la difference!

John Newton says that he believes in an unconditional election before he was born because he certainly didn't do anything in his life to merit it! The Reformed doctrines (known also as "doctrines that divide" by some) are known as TULIP or by five so-called points in this acrostic. The misunderstanding comes from the unfortunate nomenclature in describing the points. They should be better known as radical corruption, sovereign choice, efficacious or quickening grace, particular redemption, and God's preservation of the saints, just to give examples (R. C. Sproul, among others, use these terms).

Faith is a gift per Acts 18:27 ("You have believed through grace") among other passages. He opens our hearts like He did to Lydia in Acts 16:14. Note also that repentance is the flip side of faith and is also the gift of God per Acts 5:31 among other passages like Acts 14:27. The terms faith and repentance are linked and used almost interchangeably in the gospels and epistles and there is no saving faith without genuine repentance; you can distinguish them, but not separate them--they go hand in hand and are seen together as the gift of God as a work of grace in the individual to change his character and quicken his spirit to salvation (cf. Acts 20:21). The point is that God grants repentance just as faith: Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25; Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor. 7:9, et al. We have to see what Jesus meant in John 6:44, 65 and that we cannot come to the Father on our own, without grace and it is "granted," according to Philippians 1:29. 

All believers need to know the basics of this theology and not be ignorant. This is not the place to elaborate or defend these doctrines here, as we will miss the point: What is the point? Simply what the reformers' battle cry was: The "Five Only's": Sola Deo Gloria (to God alone be the glory--i.e., we get no credit!), sola fide (by faith alone--i.e., not of works we do), soli Christo (through Christ alone--i.e., we don't help Jesus out!), sola gratia (by grace alone--i.e., it is freely given and not earned or deserved!) and Sola Scriptura (They see Scripture alone as authority--i.e., not the Papists, Romanists, or the "Church."). As Martin Luther said, "I dissent, I disagree, I protest." Namely, that God gets all the glory and credit and we have naught to brag or boast of in His presence. Grace alone means we don't work at all in our salvation; it's a done deal land a free undeserved, unearned gift.!

They should be known as the "doctrines of grace, not doctrines that divide." Arminians don't accept the fact that grace is the sine qua non of faith (in other words it is not only necessary, but all-sufficient, and regeneration precedes faith per 2 Thess. 2:13 and 1 John 5:1 in the ESV). Romanists affirm that grace is necessary but we must add at least some congruous merit to it since it is not sufficient. We don't add to God's work in us--that gives us some of the credit.

Christians of the Reformed persuasion are not fanatics on a mission to convert believers to their school of thought but have a new spiritual fervor because of this awakening, and once you've experienced it, you want to pass it along! Just as Jesus said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32). God turns our hearts of stone into hearts of flesh by grace (cf. Ezek. 36:26)--He makes believers out of us and works in us according to His will per Philippians 2:13et alia! The conclusion of the matter is this: God doesn't enable us to save ourselves or even just offer to save us--He saves us! We must first quit trying to save ourselves and learn to trust and obey. Soli Deo Gloria!
















N.B. Faith and faithfulness are the same words in the OT and Hab. 2:4 (and Rom. 1:17) implies that a righteous man lives by his faith (faithfulness, i.e., it is a continual action, not a one-time event that is saving faith, bringing about good deed as fruit). Martin Luther made it clear in his first of Ninety-Five Theses that repentance was also a continual event that never ceased in the believer's walk and not a one-time event either.

By Nature Children Of Wrath

VERSES FOR PONDERING AND MEDIATION REGARDING DEPRAVITY: 


"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"  (Gen. 6:5, ESV, emphasis mine). 

"They have gone deep in depravity ...  He will remember their iniquity, He will punish their sins"  (Hosea 9:9, NASB). 

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"  (Jerimiah 17:9, ESV, emphasis mine).

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart"  (Prov. 21:2, ESV, emphasis mine).  

"No man can justify himself before God by a perfect performance of the Law's demands--indeed it is the straight-edge of the Law that shows us how crooked we are" (Rom. 3:20, J. B. Phillips, emphasis mine).

"The LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts"  (cf. 1 Chronicles 28:9). 

"... God withdrew from Hezekiah to see what was really in his heart"  (cf. 2 Chronicles 32:21).

"... God left him [Hezekiah] to himself, in order to test him and to know all that was in his heart"  (2 Chron. 32:31, ESV).  

"Being made then free from [the power of] sin, ye became the servants of righteousness [Christ]"  (Rom. 6:18, KJV).

NOTE THAT WE ARE SINNERS BY NATURE, BY BIRTH, AND BY CHOICE! Augustine said we are, in Latin, non posse non peccare, or we're unable not to sin--all we can do is sin!

WE ARE SINNERS NOT BECAUSE WE SIN.  RATHER, WE SIN BECAUSE WE ARE SINNERS, ACCORDING TO A FAMOUS THEOLOGICAL AXIOM.

Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:10, ESV,   "But by the grace of God I am what I am...."  We are what we are by nature, just like a pig is only acting according to its nature when it wallows in the mud after cleaned, we act consistently with the nature God gave us:  whether we are sanguine, choleric, melancholy, temperamental, even easy-going, or happy-go-lucky!  The good news is that our God always acts according to His nature and that means He acts perfectly according to a perfect nature, and He cannot act contrary to it.

"See,  this alone, I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes"  (Eccl. 7:29, ESV).  For all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (cf. Rom. 3:23)!  If sin were a color like red, we'd be all red--you cannot be only a little depraved, no more than a little pregnant. We are radically corrupt, with no peripheral goodness to boast of in God's presence--our righteousness is as filthy rags and His gift to us, not our gift to Him. We are as bad off as we can be with our hearts totally evil and corrupt, that includes our will, mind, and affections.  They say we are totally depraved, but not utterly depraved--we're not as bad as we can possibly be, but as bad off.

We soon find out in life that we all have feet of clay and the adage that to err is human and that no body's perfect.  But we tend to compare ourselves with others and the run-of-the-mill sinner seems to estimate himself a saint compared to the likes of Hitler, the paradigm of evil in our times.  We have solidarity in Adam, sharing original sin and the effect of that sin in the perfect environment of the Garden of Eden.

Depravity is God's estimation of man, not our own self-estimation!  Some people indeed think they're okay in their estimation and don't even think they've sinned.  However, man is not basically good, but inherently evil and our sin permeates our very core of being.  The complete heart is depraved: the emotions in Psalm 37:4; the will in Exodus 7:20; and the intellect in Matt. 15:19.  In other words: Sin permeates our very being and our reasoning power is dead (cf. Rom. 8:7); our conscience is corrupt (cf. Tit. 1:5); our will is stubborn (cf. Rom.1:32); our desires are selfish and base (cf. Col. 3:5); and our thoughts are evil (cf. Gen 6:5).  Our minds, wills, bodies, and spirits are corrupt--our total soul and being.  We must expose the dark side to see ourselves for what we are--fallen creatures!   We have no intrinsic goodness nor intrinsic merit nor value nor dignity, but only extrinsic worth and dignity because we are in the image of God and are clay in the Potter's hands.

The trouble, someone has said, is that most people don't see how bad they are, and the catch-22 is that we must see how bad we are to be good and qualify for goodness, and we don't know that till we've tried to be good and seen the futility of the attempt without God.  Man never ceased to be man with the power of choice, but ceased to be good!   Indeed we are bad, but the good news is that we are not too bad to be saved, if we will only confess it and confession or homologeo in Greek means to say the same thing as we need to agree with God and come clean with Him.  Man's basic problem in thinking he's good is that he thinks he does good deeds (Isa. 64:6 says they are filthy rags!), and God says no one does good, no not one!  He is delusional in his self-estimation and is only being self-righteous.

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?  Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil"  (Jer. 13:23, ESV).   None of us even lives up to our own standards and perfectly obeys his own conscience:  Ovid said, "I see the better things and approve them, but I follow the worst."  All you have to do is read Romans 7:24, ESV, which emphatically says: Wretched man that I am!  Who will deliver me from this body of death?") to see Paul's struggle with evil within.  We are great sinners, but there is a Great Savior!

The point in salvation is that we cannot clean up our act and that Jesus sees through and penetrates our veneer or masquerade.  We must realize that we are never good enough to be saved, but bad enough to need salvation by grace with nothing we can do to contribute to God's accomplishment on our behalf.  We assume God grades on a curve, but we are all in the same boat known as the universality of sin and all have fallen short of the ideal standard set by God through His Son.  We can't play games with God or fool Him!  God judges our motives, and even good deeds can be done for selfish reasons or evil motive, even to gain the approbation of God.  "And he [Amaziah] did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, but not with a perfect heart"  (cf. 2 Chronicles 25:2).  Our solidarity in Adam always gives us away!

God sometimes lets man go his own way:  "But they say, 'That is in vain!  We will follow our own plans, and everyone act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart'"  (Jer. 18:12, ESV);  "'But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would not submit to me.  So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels"  (Psalm 81:12, ESV).

The reality, which is a paradox, is that man is not born free, but born a slave and in bondage to sin and the old sin nature; "... People are slaves to whatever has mastered them" ["... For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved"  (2 Pet. 2:10, ESV)]  (cf. 2 Pet. 2:19);  "... You belong to the power you choose to obey" [... "you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness" (Rom. 6:16, ESV)] (cf. Rom. 6:16). We "by nature children of wrath," according to Ephesians 2:3.

We need to be set free from our own wickedness and nature, and this can only be done by the power of Christ transforming our souls upon salvation.  "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36, ESV).   Paul says, "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace"  (Romans 6:14, ESV).

However, the problem of man is that he doesn't see his own sin and must be convicted (only the Holy Spirit can do this too), because man instinctively justifies his own sin and fails to see his shortcomings, but tends to think too highly of himself, in the best possible light, and that he is basically good, and not inherently evil through and through with no inherent goodness intact.

As Christians, we have been set free from bondage to Satan and our sin nature and don't have to obey sin or be its slave.  "... [A]nd let no iniquity get dominion over me"  (Psalm 119:133, ESV).  "Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me!"  (Psalm 19:13, ESV).    Soli Deo Gloria!

How Can Grace Be Irresistible?

Some believers sincerely deny irresistible grace, wrongly assuming it makes God look like a despot and we are merely robots.  If it wasn't for the grace of God, none of us would believe!  It's grace all the way; God saw no merit in us to warrant salvation, neither presalvation work nor preparation to qualify us, and nothing that merits it, which would be the beginning of salvation by works, as the Catholic adds works to faith and merit to grace, distorting the way of salvation, by grace alone, through Christ alone, in Christ alone and only God getting the glory--"Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9).

Rome erroneously sees faith as a work (the Council of Trent declared in 1546 that sola fide or through faith alone, was anathema), but we are not saved by works!  Man is incurably addicted to doing something for his salvation (cf. John 6:28-29,  "...What can we do, to do the works of God?  This is the work of God, to believe in Him whom He has sent").  Faith is God's work in us, but our act, God doesn't believe for us.

Now if you object to God being overwhelming or irresistible, think of a young lad who vows never to like girls or a monk who vows not to marry and suddenly God has other intentions or plans!   The change their tune pretty quickly: They cannot deny acting willingly even though it wasn't their plan; it was like getting an offer they couldn't refuse.  Celibacy is a gift of God and not everyone can make it without a mate to help them ("The LORD will create a new thing on earth--the woman will protect the man," says Jeremiah 31:22).

The Scriptural support is given in Romans 5:21 that says, "grace reigns through righteousness."  Grace is sovereign and God will save whom He desires to save according to Romans 9:16 saying, "Not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy."  Zechariah 4:6 also says, "Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the LORD."   If salvation is a monergistic or one-way, unilateral endeavor or work, and not a cooperation or synergistic work, then it has to be irresistible in effect. God gives us an offer we can't refuse!  Rome claims man merely "cooperates" with God to get saved (making room for some merit that we deserve to be saved in effect), or what is ultimately making man able to save himself!   [Our calls can be effective or noneffective but when God calls it never falls on deaf ears--do you think Lazarus had a choice in being raised from the dead?]  It can be called the efficacious calling of God that quickens or kindles faith in us as we are regenerated in the Spirit.

Arminians believe that faith precedes regeneration and is the cause of it. The Reformed position is that we are elected "unto faith" and not because of it.  They believe that God elects us because He merely foresees who will believe.  Romans 8:29-30 militates against this view and clearly demonstrates that this so-called "prescient" view is erroneous.  1 John 5:1 in the ESV says that those who believe have been born of God (past tense) and this verifies the doctrine.  2 Thess. 2:13 also militates against Arminianism:  "...He has chosen you unto salvation through sanctification of the Spirit [N.B. coming first!] and belief in the truth." John 6:44 says, "No man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws [woos] him."  If you came to Christ on your own, you probably left on your own too!  The word to woo (Elko in Greek) in the verse means to drag and not just to entice or lead. God can make even make the unwilling willing!

 God doesn't offer to save us--He saves us!  Anything less would be limiting the plenipotence (omnipotence) of God. "Who makes you to differ? What do you have that you didn't receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7).  We were no more worthy, sincere, nor moral to merit salvation, but were chosen "according to His purpose and grace." Jesus declared our helplessness to believe in our own strength, "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (cf. John 15:5).  

In conclusion, we should, therefore, affirm the primacy of grace, which is the sine qua non of faith (without which it doesn't exist or necessary and sufficient).  Rome believes grace is necessary, but not sufficient to work regeneration--we merely cooperate and are made able to save ourselves by merit added to grace.  God is no respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11) and we have no claim on God--He didn't have to save anyone and our destiny is ultimately in His hands (Eph. 1:4). "You did not choose Me, but I chose you..." (John 15:16). "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. 22:14). Soli Deo Gloria!

The Definite Atonement

This is one of the most problematic doctrines and one that divides earnest and sincere believers.  As Augustine said, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity."  There is room for debate on the doctrine and like eternal security, there are proof-texts for both sides:  Please read on with an open mind.

The issue in question and open to debate is this:  Did the Atonement make possible the salvation of all, or the salvation of the elect certain? Specifically: Is faith a work of man (as Rome and Arminians assert) or the gift of grace?  Or Does God save us, or enable us to save ourselves?  Was Christ's work of redemption accomplished in toto on the cross?   R. C. Sproul has made this the crux of the matter.  It is the issue argued at the Synod of Dort in 1618 that condemned the Remonstrants who objected to the Reformed position, better known as the Calvinist's schema.

To put things in perspective, it is not your grasp of the deeper truths of the Bible, but your personal application that matters:  You must believe that Jesus died and rose again for you personally to be saved.  Remember the hymns:  "Amazing love! how can it be, that thou, my God, shouldst die for me" and "Just as I am, without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me."  "Alas! and did my Savior bleed?  And did my Sovereign die?  Would he devote that sacred head For such a worm as I?" It is not your theory or apprehension of the doctrine of the Atonement that saves you.  I reiterate it takes faith to believe that he not only died but lives in victory for you individually, not to apprehend a doctrine.

As you will see there is a problem in semantics, because both Arminian and Reformed views limit the Atonement in some respect and the terminology limited and unlimited Atonement (sometimes referred to as General Atonement) are insufficient to describe what happens on the cross.  Both sides agree that there is no universal atonement that saves all.  The problem begins with the definition of atonement, which is also translated propitiation and reconciliation and even expiation--it depends upon what you are focusing on: the divine or the human side, the positive and negative aspect, one's righteousness or sin.

Calvinists, or theologians of the "Reformed" tradition, believe in the so-called "limited atonement" [better referred to as "definite atonement" (or particular redemption)--Atonement means satisfaction or to set things right and make amends (between God and man)--because "definite" implies that God has a design or purpose behind what He was doing--He always does!] and this belief in a limited atonement is a misnomer, (Arminians believe in "unlimited atonement" or that Christ's sacrifice covered everyone's sins--note that they were also known as the Remonstrants were condemned at the Synod of Dort in 1618, which created a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe).  They have limited the Atonement [also in covering every sin but the unpardonable one--that is why unbelievers go to hell!]:  they say that when Christ said "Tetelestai" or "It is finished," [not "I am finished," implying it waited for our cooperation and synergistic effort of ratification by a work of faith] that it wasn't finished completely.  In other words, He wasn't saving anyone, but only making salvation possible; it would have been possible that no one got saved. [This was their articulated position at the Synod of Dort.]

Does God actually have a design and purpose for atonement or not?  Actually, God finished salvation's work on the cross (He didn't say, "I am finished, but "It is finished.") and He ratified it on our behalf as His elect. "Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9)--i.e., it is not a cooperative venture but completely the work of God who gets all the glory. "The Lord knows those who are His."   You're either limiting the extent (to whom it reaches) or the purpose of the Atonement.  God doesn't leave anything to chance.  Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe."

I postulate that Christ's atonement is sufficient for everyone who has faith in Christ, and no one can claim that they are on the "wrong list," as it were.  "Greater love has no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends."  "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."  You are either limiting the extent of the atonement (for whom) or its sufficiency and adequacy.  What they commonly assert is that the atonement is "sufficient for all, but efficient for some" or taking effect for the elect only--saying we receive or accept God's salvation to certify or complete it. We must personally appropriate His substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf.

If it avails for all, then you have a proof-text for universalism, as 1 John 2:2 (NIV)  proclaims:  "For He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world." This verse actually means that Christ's atonement is sufficient for the sins of the whole world and ipso facto no one has an excuse because of it--specifically, salvation is not just for the Jews, who thought it was just for them.  But Christ died "...that he might taste death for everyone"  (Heb. 2:9).

The omniscience of God assures us that God knows those who are His and who will believe and who wouldn't believe. We are limiting God by saying that He waits for our ratification to complete the work.  God doesn't just see ahead who will be saved and elect them (prescient view) but elects us unto faith.  "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:39).  If we study Rom. 8:29-30 to study the golden chain of redemption we can see that all that God calls get saved ("And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he justified."), and this is not the case with us, because the general call we give in evangelizing sometimes falls on deaf ears. as opposed to God's inner call that never gets rejected because of irresistible grace, and Christ gets rejected.

We are assured that anyone who believes or has genuine saving and living faith will be saved.  The only thing standing in the way of a believer is his lack of faith in receiving the free gift of eternal life in Christ by grace.  No one will be able to blame Christ for their condemnation!  Let me conclude that no one is saved by their theory of the Atonement;  There are indeed pious believers on both sides of this issue.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Can Man Be Born Again?

Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again to see the kingdom of God. He rejoined, "How can an old man reenter his mother's womb and be born again?" The question is not whether one has the permission to be born again but the ability. It is from the word for "power" in the Latin Vulgate whereas in English "can" often implies permission. Martin Luther also translated it "Wie kann ein Mensch geboren werden,..." German is similar to English but kann means ability while darf means permission and the two are not to be confused. This refers to total depravity, the T of TULIP.

God isn't out to reform your life but to give you a full life. "No man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). We are helpless and totally dependent on God's grace to save us--we are at His mercy, He is the Master of our fate and Captain of our soul. Jesus said, "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).

We had no say in our first birth and we were born again by God's miracle also. Did you cooperate in your birth or were you just a victim so to speak?  (It was the counter-reformation Council of Trent in 1546 that declared that if you don't believe you cooperated with God of your own free will you are anathema.)   We have no indigenous power or inherent ability to reform ourselves or transform our nature or to make ourselves suitable for salvation--God is the potter and we are the clay. Notice that Jesus used the passive voice meaning that we are acted upon and we don't do anything ourselves--we become born again through the power of the Holy Spirit. We are regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit and adopted into God's family as brethren of Christ.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Debating The Atonement?

Is it necessary to quarrel about the Atonement--that is, its extent, purpose, or design? Some of the problems are due to mere semantics and definitions. Some very conservative Calvinist theologians consider this a litmus test of orthodoxy. Today we have what is called four-point Calvinists. They do not adhere to or affirm the L of the acrostic TULIP, I mean the doctrine of the limited atonement or particular or definite redemption. They do not like to be called Arminians, who were declared heretics at the Synod of Dort in 1618. Their formulation was that the Atonement is sufficient for all but efficient for some. They believe that Christ died for Judas' sins.

One has to realize that we contribute nothing to our salvation. God quickens faith within us and thus faith is a gift. It is not a meritorious work as Rome believes. Salvation is either of God, of God and man, or of man. Jonah 2:9 says, "Salvation is of the Lord." Remember that Jesus said, "It is finished."

He was not making salvation possible for all, but assured for the sheep, for whom He laid down His life. I've heard it said that Christ died for all indiscriminately, but we have to receive it. If Christ was punished for Judas' sins, then why should he suffer in hell? Arminians believe the Atonement made salvation possible for all, but certain for none. It makes it both indefinite and unlimited. In what way does the Atonement avail for the non-elect?

Salvation is for everyone in the sense that if they believe they are saved--but God decides who believes. We believe because of our election; we are not elected because we believe. Acts 13:48 says, "As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." N.B. that the appointment or election came first (c.f. 2 Thess. 2:13). Is. 53:12 says, "...He bore the sin of many..." (note that it could have said "all" but named the sub-set).

It is not necessary to understand the Atonement to be saved. We are not saved by our theory of the Atonement either. We must pray as if everything depends on God, and witness as if everything depends on us. We should not let our doctrine hinder our witness--keep it simple. Some doctrine is not meant for babies in Christ. May we get our "meat in due season."

Logic will make it clear that Christ laid down His life for His "friends." He only prayed for believers in His great intercessory prayer in John 17:9:  "I pray for them, I pray not for the world."  God knows ahead of time who will believe. There is a legal principle of double jeopardy. God predestines the salvation of His elect. Universal atonement leads to a conclusion of Universalism (redemption and salvation for all).   1 John 2:2 leads to this conclusion if we use that as a proof text--"And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." (Here the world refers to Jews and Gentiles included who believe, not everyone indiscriminately.)

Atonement means reconciliation. All are not saved or reconciled, ergo the Atonement has to be definite or limited to the elect. It is good news that no one who believes will be left out. The Arminian makes possible the salvation of all, but certain for none--it could've been that no one got saved! Au contraire, Jesus said, "It is finished." The plea is that Jesus died to offer you salvation contingent upon faith.  NB:  We are not saved by our theory or view of the atonement!  Let me finish with stating that we are never saved by our theory of the atonement, and it is the immature believer who balks at learning the things of God in depth.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Are You An Arminian? Take This Test!

Most people know that Calvinists (or Reformed, if you will) believe in the five points of Reformed theology, unless they are a so-called four-pointer, of course, but here's a test that may surprise you. In case you aren't familiar with TULIP, the acrostic that stands for "total depravity," "unconditional election," "limited atonement," "irresistible grace," and "perseverance of the saints," I will review. T means we are inherently bad, not good--we are not as bad as we could be, but as bad off as we could be in God's estimation; U means God doesn't base His election of us on anything meritorious in us, not prescient election, which says God merely sees who will believe and elects them (that would be meritorious); L means God has a particular redemption or definite atonement in mind--it is the Arminians that actually limit the atonement, the Calvinists make it efficacious for the elect. P means God preserves us despite ourselves, otherwise known as eternal security.

Denying any of these doctrines makes you part Arminian. The Synod of Dort in 1618 condemned the Remonstrants who were Arminian and affirmed these five points. Calvinism is the biblical and orthodox position, not Arminianism, developed by Jacobus Arminius (his Latin name, who was Jacob Hermann in his own tongue) of The Netherlands, who was condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council and lost his professorship (he was actually a Reformed theologian).

A: Salvation is synergistic, or man cooperates with God
C: Salvation is monergistic and grace is efficacious and irresistible & God's work
A: All have the ability to believe if they want to
C: No one can believe, or will to believe apart from grace
A: Faith is the reason we are saved, it is our righteousness, it is a work of man
C: Faith is a gift of God, it is the work of God, but our act
A: Faith is reckoned as righteousness
C: Faith is reckoned unto (the instrumentality or means of) righteousness
A: Salvation is a cooperation between man and God-man takes the first step of faith and meets God half-way
C: God initiates salvation and grants faith through grace--we cannot believe apart from grace's intervention
A: Man has a free will and can operate independently of God, even thwarting Him
C: The will is enslaved to sin, in bondage and not freed, though he is a free
moral agent
A: Faith is a meritorious work accomplished by man that leads to salvation
C: Faith is a gift of God that is unto salvation, the instrumentality
A: The atonement saves none for sure, but makes possible the salvation of all if
they believe
C: The atonement was accomplished when Christ said, "It is finished" and secures the elect's salvation.

Arminians above represented by A; Calvinists or Reformed by C

The Arminian believes he met God "half-way" and pats himself on the back for his salvation--not giving all the glory to God (a battle cry of the Reformation was sola Deo Gloria--to God alone be the glory.)

The Romanist believes grace is necessary, but not sufficient--one must do something meritorious. However, grace is the sin qua non of salvation--it is necessary and sufficient. Have you heard of the Geritol testimony where the person said Geritol really helped him but he also took his grandmother's secret recipe? Of course, that testimony could not be used because it could not be proved the Geritol was the answer.

R. C. Sproul quotes J. I. Packer as follows: "The difference between them [Arminians and Calvinists] is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind--election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit--as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man's salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man...."  The big question is whether Jesus saves us outright, or just enables us to save ourselves--does He make salvation possible, or assured?

Now, I do not believe Calvinists should show contempt for Arminians, because if they are evangelical they are probably Christians, too, and also there are very few Calvinists around who can say they were never Arminians at one time or at least convinced of one of their doctrines. I do not believe it is good to label our fellow believers, but this distinction is very clear and is like Protestant/Catholic. One can be an evangelical Arminian, of course. Arminian churches are Church of Christ, Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostal, Methodist, Wesleyan, Roman Catholic.    Soli Deo Gloria!