Is God Limited? A Blog Response to The John Piper Fallacy, Pt. 4

Before I get started today, I’d like to lift up two books that I have been quoting from in this post-response miniseries: (1) F. Leroy Forlines’s Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation and (2) John Wagner’s Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will, and the Nature of God. John Wagner is a fellow theology friend of mine who has done a marvelous job in compiling the most important writings and arguments of James Arminius so as to help readers who may seem overwhelmed (that’s a good word) by the three-volume set of Arminius’s Works. I own a three-volume set of Arminius and I can tell you...it can be hectic at times. Having said that, this is a source that every believer needs to buy, whether Calvinist, Arminian, or Molinist. One cannot claim to know what James Arminius said if he or she is not willing to pay a few bucks to read the actual statements Arminius made. Even theologians with great arguments have no arguments against Classical (Reformed) Arminianism if they do not read Arminius’s actual sayings and writings. There are usually two sides to every story: alongside the Calvinist story is the Arminian story. What a pity that so few people actually read the other side! Maybe that’s what’s caused the Arminian bias seen today in the evangelical world.

Last but not least, for those of you who’ve been reading, yes, F. Leroy Forlines’s book is one of the best Arminian Systematic Theologies one will buy in this century. I’ve read Forlines’s work from cover to cover, and I am amazed that so much could be placed in a volume of its size. Forlines’s emphasis on man made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26-28) is a theme Forlines traces through his entire work. By the time one gets to Chapter 8 on Sanctification, Forlines will “hit” you with the reality that being made in the divine image and likeness makes us more than “depraved” human beings and “puppets.” Those who argue that man is nothing more than depraved and not worth anything are those who have (implicitly) bought into the idea that the image of God has been completely destroyed in man. Man is totally depraved;  but is the image of God destroyed? Genesis 9, after the Flood, shows the Lord validating man’s possession of the divine image with regard to murder...and God promising to punish a guilty man with the taking of the guilty man’s own life (Gen. 9:6). If the image of God means that much to God, how much should it mean to us??? My answer: It should mean a lot more than the logical implications of Calvinism.

On to today’s post...Philip McGoo has been introduced to the readership here for the last few days. I am very thankful to Philip for the opportunity he has provided me to be able to defend the Reformed Arminianism I love so dear. In addition, I wanted to share with the readers that your comments (provided they are inquisitive and kind) really do mean a lot to me. I value good, quality comments and want you to know that you are being read. So don’t be ashamed to send in honest questions or comments...I am always reading and desire that Calvinists would come to understand that Arminianism is not Open Theism, or “semi-Pelagianism,” or “Pelagianism,” or a theology that denies God’s sovereignty, etc. (any insult made, you can throw in here). We Reformed Arminians do hold to the grace of God in salvation...and we want theologians of other persuasions (Calvinists, Molinists, etc.) to stop “caricaturizing” us and our theology. We hold to divine grace and the divine initiative in salvation.

Philip’s quote from yesterday pertains to the “necessary consequences of conditional election.” I tackled the idea that conditional election leads to “partial depravity.” Arminius always argued total depravity, as deeply as any Calvinist. In today’s post, I will tackle the next so-called “necessary consequence” of conditional election---that is, “limitations of God’s sovereignty.”

Philip’s Calvinism leads him to think that Reformed Arminians argue limitation on divine sovereignty. Did Arminius think this way? I ask this because, if we’re gonna posit that Arminians hold to something, we need to start with the one who is to be credited for Arminian theology---James Arminius himself (not John Wesley, as most assume). From Arminius’s Works we can know for sure whether or not Arminius held to the sovereignty of God...and by so doing, we can know whether or not he was “Reformed” in any sense (despite the Calvinist monopoly on this label, “Reformed” refers to the principles of the Protestant Reformation. Classic Arminians would hold to “sola fide” as much as any Calvinist, placing them within the “Reformed” camp).

So what did Arminius say about divine sovereignty? Arminius had this to say in Disputation XXII of his Works, titled “On the Power or Capability of God”:

“It [power of God] is a faculty of the Divine life, by which, (subsequently to the understanding of God that shews and directs, and to his will that commands,) He is capable of operating externally what things soever He can freely will, and by which He does operate whatever He freely wills” (James Arminius, Works II: 352).

God’s power (sovereignty) allows Him to do “whatever He freely wills.” Arminius acknowledges that, between God and man, God is the most free of the two parties. God is above man and can do an infinite amount of things that man cannot do. There is no compromise of divine sovereignty here.

At the end of Disputation XXII, Arminius had this to say about divine sovereignty:

“But [potentia] the Capability of God is infinite; and this not only because it can do all things possible, which indeed are innumerable, so that as many cannot be enumerated as it is capable of doing, [or after all that can be numbered, it is capable of doing still more], nor can such great things [ponderari] be calculated without its being able to produce far greater; but likewise because nothing can resist it. For all created things depend upon Him as upon the efficient principle, both in their being and in their preservation: Hence omnipotence is justly ascribed to Him” (James Arminius, Works II: 353).

Arminius wrote that God “can do all things possible, which indeed are innumerable.” The word “innumerable” means “without number”---that is, God can do an infinity of acts! Does this sound like Arminius limits God’s sovereignty? Not at all. If someone posits that God can do “an infinite” number of things, where is this limiting God’s sovereignty?

But this is where one finds irony in Calvinism. Calvinism posits that God cannot do “everything.” Why? Because, in their opinion, God cannot save according to conditional election. But is that the case? The only things that God does not do are those things that Arminius marks as “insanity”:

“Those things are impossible to God which involve a contradiction,---as, to make another God, to be mutable, to sin, to lie, to cause something at once to be and not to be, to have been and not to have been, &c., that this thing should be and not be, that it and its contrary should be, that an accident should be without its subject...these things partly belong [impotentia] to a want of power to be capable of doing them, and partly to insanity to will to do them” (James Arminius, Works II: 353).

If God cannot create contradiction, then how does conditional election (as Philip posits) get ruled out of the eternal decrees? Why must God only “unconditionally elect”? Interestingly enough, if you look under the comments section of my earlier post on “Unconditional Election: The John Piper Fallacy in Romans 9,” you will find that Philip himself doesn’t believe that Romans 9 actually argues for unconditional election. Philip wrote:

“I would agree that Romans 9 isn’t enough by itself to fully justify unconditional election.”

Dr. Piper, if you’re out there take note of the fact that there are Calvinists who don’t think Romans 9 convinces us as much as you think it does!

But if Philip doesn’t think Romans 9 makes the case, then what he is doing is drawing an “inference” from Scripture. But if he is drawing an “inference,” and I am drawing an inference,” then what makes his inference “possible” and mine “impossible”? The only thing that would give this declaration is the Calvinist presupposition. One cannot consider conditional election (in this case) because one is a Calvinist, and both natures of election cannot be right (for the co-existence of both would lead to a Scriptural contradiction).

As has been shown in this post, Arminius does not do away with divine sovereignty by arguing for conditional election. He greatly held to the providence and sovereignty of God, and he does not limit God in his words. While Philip’s claim (the Calvinist claim) is presuppositional, Arminius simply argues otherwise and contradicts Philip’s claim. This post provides another win for Reformed Arminianism. I will respond to more of Philip’s comment in the days to come. God bless.

Responding to the Objections: A Blog Response to the John Piper Fallacy Post, Pt. 3

All of the John Piper frenzy here at The Center for Theological Studies started with my post titled “Unconditional Election: The John Piper Fallacy in Romans 9.” For the last four days, there have been some estimated near 250 visits to the site. Who knew the outcome of just one post?

Since then, I have spent some three days or so responding to comments made by a “Philip McGoo,” a gentleman who was quite proud to tell me he was a Calvinist...and yet, he had the humility to desire correspondence with me in the comments section of that post. Please visit that post and see the 6 comments or so posted there.

I’ve been showing (with Philip as the example) that so few Calvinists really know what Classical or Reformed Arminianism really is. Most have never even heard of the words “Reformed” and “Arminian” put together, and there are some that even think the label is a contradiction or a misnomer. This does nothing to degrade the soteriological system of James Arminius; rather, what it shows is that very few Calvinists (if any at all) read anything but Calvin’s Institutes and books written by contemporary Calvinists (such as John Piper, R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, etc.). But is this not a biased approach to studying theology? Is Calvinism the only theology available today? No. Rather, it is one of a few theologies that, like the others, must be subjected to Scripture. This places Calvinism on the same level as the other soteriological systems.

In this post, however, I’m gonna talk about the remainder of Philip’s comment on the John Piper post: that is, his remaining words regarding the texts of John 6 and Romans 8:

“You speak of conditional and unconditional election as if they were two paths, and it is just as easy to take one as the other. I just wonder if you've thought of the necessary consequences of conditional election, ie. partial depravity, limitations of God's sovereignty, possibility of losing salvation (which I think Romans 8 and John 6 make a fairly strong case against).”

I’ve already refuted the notion that Reformed Arminianism leads to “partial depravity.” I’ve also done away with the critique that the Arminian system leads to “limitations of God’s sovereignty.” In this post, I will deal with the “possibility of losing salvation”---what the Scriptures refer to as “falling away” or “apostasy.”

The biblical text, unfortunately for Philip, does not provide the assumptions he confidently assumes the text does. When one looks in John 6, for example, it is true that there were those with Jesus who did not believe (Jn. 6:64); however, this is not the only group Jesus addresses. In verse 67, Jesus asks His own disciples, “Do you also want to go away?”

The question before us is this: were Jesus’ words in John 6:67 true or not? Could the disciples leave following Christ or not? There is no question that the disciples believed on Him, for Peter gives the answer for the group (vv.68-69); the question is, “Was it possible for the disciples to turn back from following Christ?” 


It is at this moment that some may say, “But you can’t lose your salvation.” But why is this merely “assumed”? Philip seems to think it is. But in his comment to me, he doesn’t explain why Jesus was not asking a real question of real possibility to the disciples. Instead, he sweeps everything together and says, “John 6 argues against your view.” This is called “the fallacy of cavalier dismissal,” where someone says “You’re wrong” and proceeds to continue on as if they’ve proven their point. But Philip did not prove his point. What one has to prove is that Jesus asks a hypothetical question in John 6:67. It seems that he doesn’t, for Peter then answers the question. Evidently, Peter didn’t think it was hypothetical, or a trick question...so what gives us believers the right to believe this in the current day? Philip is not alone. Calvinists have simply assumed such questions were hypothetical without answering the Arminian questions. Why is this so? How can one be right because “one thinks he’s right”? Where’s the logic in that, exactly?

Now, on to Romans 8. Philip believes that this text, too, argues in favor of the Calvinist view. But does it? The famous verse I’ve heard quoted by professors and students alike is Romans 8:35-39, where Paul says that he is convinced that “nothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (NKJV). But how does this translate into an argument in favor of eternal security? If Romans 8:35-39 argues for eternal security, then there is a major problem indeed: for in Jude, Jude tells the church to “keep yourselves in the love of God” (Jude 20-21). So, if Romans 8 says I’m eternally secure, then how can one reconcile Jude 20-21 with eternal security? If God is going to keep me in His love (as many interpret Romans 8), then why do I have to “keep myself in the love of God”?

Calvinists have never provided an answer to these questions. In fact, the majority of believers simply posit that “you cannot lose your salvation because God doesn’t take it away from you.” Little do they know that no Reformed Arminian (at least) makes that argument. Some refer to the Wesleyan notion of the loss of salvation and say, “You can’t lose your salvation from day to day because of sin.” No Reformed Arminian (not even the founder, James Arminius) would ever hold to that notion of apostasy (falling away). Rather, the question is not first, “can one lose their salvation?”, but rather, “can one lose faith?” For Arminius, if one could fall away from faith, that individual would (as a consequence) fall away from salvation, since faith was the condition for salvation. Read Arminius’s own words:

“I subjoin that there is a vast difference between the enunciation of these two sentences: (1) ‘it is possible for believers to decline from the faith’ and (2) it is possible for believers to decline from salvation.’ For the latter, when rigidly and accurately examined, can scarcely be admitted, it being impossible for believers, as long as they remain believers, to decline from salvation. Because, were this possible, that power of God would be conquered which He has determined to employ in saving believers. On the other hand, if believers fall away from the faith and become unbelievers, it is impossible for them to do otherwise than decline from salvation, that is, provided they still continue as unbelievers” (James Arminius, quoted by John Wagner. Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will, and the Nature of God. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2011, pages 307-308).

Those who believe cannot fall away from salvation “as long as they remain believers”---that is, they hold on to their faith. The reason why those who are “currently” believing are secure is because “that power of God” is...”employed” to save believers. The sovereignty of God is directly linked to security in Christ. If there is no security at all, God is not sovereign.

However, Arminius does clarify even further: if one falls away from “faith” (the condition for salvation) and becomes an unbeliever, his decline from “faith” results in an automatic decline from “salvation.” If 1) faith is the condition for salvation, and 2) someone declines from faith, then 3) that individual has also declined from salvation. This is Arminius’s syllogism from his above quote and this position seems rather logical.

All of this is to say that yes, Philip, I have considered the consequences of conditional election. But I would like to ask: “Philip, have you considered the consequences of not studying systems other than your own? Have you considered how narrow-minded and biased such an approach is, that you would consume your time with Calvin’s Institutes but not read Arminius’s Works?” Those questions I pose not only to Philip, but to all Calvinists. If Calvinism really is the correct soteriological system, then what do Calvinists have to lose by studying Reformed Arminianism? The only individuals who choose not to study all sides of a story are those who want to believe what they do despite the evidence. Could this be true with Calvinists?

Responding to the Objections: A Blog Response to the John Piper Fallacy Post, Pt. 2

      

  Today, I’m back again to tackle another portion of Philip McGoo’s response to my post titled “Unconditional Election: The John Piper Fallacy in Romans 9” that I posted a few days ago. Before I get started, let me state some rules about posting that maybe I’ve not made known at the site. I will, however, create an official rules post for those who desire to know what I will and will not allow on the site for comments. I will not allow posts on the site such as snide remarks. I recently received one of those about a day or so ago...and it will not be tolerated at the site. I don’t want things like, “you Arminians argue works-salvation,” etc. Instead, I want comments regarding the content of the post itself. If you are visiting the site to simply throw out insults, it’s probably better not to comment. Since Calvinists often believe in the sovereignty of God to elect some and not others (I believe in God’s sovereignty, just not the way they do), then know that I will bear sovereignty over my site and I will not post comments containing snide, rude remarks. If you’re genuinely seeking dialogue, like Philip, I am more than happy to answer questions you have. If you’re seeking to be angry and assert that “John Piper is cool...you haven’t written the books he has, you haven’t sold as many books as he has, you don’t pastor a church like he does,” etc., I simply will not post such comments. So before you waste a few minutes of your time, let me tell you that your comments will go unnoticed. No one will read them, and I will not respond to them. It will be as though you never wrote them at all. Since I bear sovereignty over The Center for Theological Studies, I will select some comments to post and not others. How’s that “Calvinism-in-practice” for a Reformed Arminian???

Enough time on that...now, on to today’s post. Today’s post involves what Philip McGoo calls “the necessary consequences of conditional election”:

“You speak of conditional and unconditional election as if they were two paths, and it is just as easy to take one as the other. I just wonder if you’ve thought of the necessary consequences of conditional election, ie., partial depravity, limitations of God’s sovereignty, possibility of losing salvation (which I think Romans 8 and John 6 make a fairly strong case against).”

First off, contra Philip, I do not argue that “it is just as easy to take one as the other.” I actually believe that both the words “unconditional” and “conditional” are both philosophical terms in and of themselves, and only a biblical, consistent theology can lead one to either conditional election or unconditional election. Before reading Scripture, however, neither should be ruled out. And this is often what Calvinists do to Arminians: they rule out our proposition before seeing whether or not the text supports our view. Isn’t it far better to be open-minded and consider that either view “could be” right, before studying the text itself? All I ask for from my Calvinist brothers and sisters is a little consideration of opposing views and the humility to admit that, at least in theory, Calvinism “could be” the wrong theology to uphold. We Arminians have certainly had our share of consideration that our own view could be wrong; after all, Calvinists bash us all the time...

Next, Philip asks me to consider the consequences of my view. First off, let me applaud Philip for holding to “logical consistency.” There is much talk (at least in Baptist life today) that one does not have to hold to logically consistent systems. Many theologians on the question of theological systems have lost what I call “the principle of the excluded middle”: that is, when two mutually-exclusive systems are on display, there can be no middle ground. And yet, it seems that “middle-ground,” inconsistent theologies are the talk of the day. Do you know why this is so? Because we have lost the meaning of logical consistency. When one simply assumes that logical consistency is man-made, he will create his own theology; but when one views consistency as describing the nature and character of the God he or she talks about, then their theology will come to reflect the nature and character of the God of Scripture.

Still, though, Philip accuses conditional election of leading to “partial depravity.” As stated in my last response to Philip, he has never read the works of James Arminius on total depravity. Here’s what Arminius had to say in his works:

“This is my opinion concerning the free will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace. But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good” (James Arminius, VII, “The Free Will of Man.” Quoted by John Wagner, Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will, and the Nature of God.” Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2011, page 68).

From the above underline words, one can see that Arminius held to total depravity: man can do nothing on his own; he must have the Holy Spirit give him grace before he can do anything that is good and God-glorifying. Arminius went on to say, “For without these gracious gifts [faith, hope, charity, etc.], man is not sufficient to think, will, or do anything that is good” (James Arminius, VIII. “The Grace of God,” quoted by John Wagner, Arminius Speaks, page 68).

Reformed Arminians (Arminians who hold to Reformation theology, while disagreeing at various points with Luther, Calvin, etc.), have often been labeled “semi-Pelagian,” “Pelagian,” “Open Theist,” etc. The problem with all of these labels is that they do not accurately fit (in any fashion) Reformed Arminian theology. James Arminius, after providing his words above on the will of man and grace, responded to the criticism of the theologians of his day. I post this as a response to Calvinist claims that Reformed Arminianism is man-centered and holds to “partial depravity” (Philip’s claim):

“From this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man’s free will. For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, ‘Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?’ That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did), but it relates solely to the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible or not. With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered” (James Arminius, quoted by John Wagner, Arminius Speaks, page 69).

Arminius does not neglect grace in his theology; rather, he argues that grace, while prevenient (going before faith), does not irresistibly make someone receive the gospel and trust Christ for salvation.

As I said earlier, Arminius never held to “partial depravity.” He argued in his Works that man could do nothing at all without grace. He also states in his work that the free will of man is “lost” without divine grace. Does this sound like a semi-Pelagian to you? Does this sound like someone who holds to “partial depravity”? You be the judge...

I will respond to more of Philip’s quote above in coming days. God bless. 

Responding to the Objections: A Blog Response to the John Piper Fallacy Post, Pt. 1

Before I get started, let me extend a special thanks to Dr. Steve Lemke, Provost of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, for his publication of my work at his new blog, “SBC Today.” Dr. Lemke and I have known each other for nearly a year now, and I thank God for the time I’ve known him as well as the hospitality he extended to me while down in New Orleans for the Apologetics Conference this past February 24-25, 2011. Next, I’d also like to give a special thanks to the blog writers at the “Contemporary Calvinist” site; thanks to their question, “exactly what is the John Piper Fallacy?” and the blog link, many individuals found their way to the Center for Theological Studies. I watched for two days, as I saw the stats on my blog climb because of the work of Dr. Lemke and the Contemporary Calvinist writers. Even though I’m convinced that Dr. Lemke disagrees with me on some areas of theology, and the writers of Contemporary Calvinist even more so, I’m thankful to know that those with whom I disagree in some points (others, many) can be cordial and extend some form of kindness. While Calvinists, Molinists, and Arminians disagree theologically (to various extents), we can all recognize at the end of the day that we love the Lord. I can say that Calvinists and Molinists love the Lord. I hope they can say the same about Classic (Reformed) Arminians.

Today’s post will begin a response from me to a commenter at the blog, a man named Philip McGoo. First off, thank you, Philip, for commenting and leaving a blog response. I greatly desire to respond to objections made to Reformed Arminianism, and any time Calvinists write in and respond, it gives me an opportunity to have meaningful dialogue. I don’t desire to be mean, or cruel, or nasty in speech (although sometimes I fail miserably in this desire!); I wanna talk with Calvinists and come to reason with both them and Molinists from the Scriptures themselves.

Since Philip’s response is somewhat packed with a lot to respond to, I will not respond to all of it in this post; nevertheless, I do desire to respond to enough (if not all) of it in a matter of a few days. For those of you who desire to read more of Philip’s comment (and my response), please tune in to CTS this week.

Here is part of Philip’s response:

“I would agree that Romans 9 isn’t enough by itself to justify unconditional election, but Genesis 6, Ephesians 2, and Romans 3 give a very strong case for total depravity, and in the language of Ephesians 2:1, a dead man can’t choose to be alive. So it is God’s work alone that brings about life in a believer. And I would say that is a better way of biblically justifying unconditional election.”

Philip and I agree about Romans 9; no problems there. Genesis 6, Ephesians 2, and Romans 3 give a very strong case for total depravity; I agree there. What you may not know, Philip, is that James Arminius himself, the father of Classical (Reformed) Arminianism, also believed that God alone gives life. This is what he wrote in his “Works”:

“The second thing to be observed is, That as the very first commencement of every good thing so likewise the progress, continuance and confirmation, nay, even the perseverance in good, are not from ourselves, but from God through the Holy Spirit. For ‘He who hath begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ;’ (Phil. i.,6;) and ‘we are kept by the power of God through faith.’ (1 Peter i., 5.) ‘The God of all grace makes us perfect, stablishes, strengthens and settles us.’ (i., 10.)” (James Arminius, Disputation XI, “The Free Will of Man and Its Powers”; Works II: 195)

I would agree with Arminius. Arminius also had this to say about God giving life to man in his fallen state:

“In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and [attenuatum] weakened; but it is also [captivatum] imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: and its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace: For Christ has said, ‘Without me ye can do nothing’” (James Arminius, Disputation XI, “On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers.” Works II: 192).

As can clearly be seen from Arminius’ words, he held to divine grace alone as giving life to sinful humanity in salvation. In his “Works,” Arminius also quotes Augustine in his refutation of Pelagius. If you read Arminius’s Works (which can be found online) he also disagreed heavily with Pelagius.

But how do the above words of Philip regarding Scripture (even Arminius) lead to unconditional election? What does Philip mean by “unconditional”? Does he mean that God selects certain individuals for salvation? Or does he mean that salvation is “unconditional” because God chooses to give life to unworthy sinners? I agree, as does Arminius, with the latter. If this is what Philip means, then he agrees with both Arminius and myself. If this is not what he means, then he means the former...and this is where I would disagree. All of this is meant to say that God choosing to give life does not necessarily lead to the idea that God only selects some individuals for salvation. To assume that is to argue irresistible grace, a concept that the Scriptures greatly oppose (Acts 7:51).

While Arminius was being questioned at the University of Leyden by university professors, he was given nine questions to answer. The first question was as follows:

“Which is first, election, or faith truly foreseen, so that God elected his people according to faith foreseen?” (“Nine Questions,” Works II: 64)

Arminius responded to this question by making distinctions:

“If therefore ‘Election’ denotes ‘the Decree which is according to election concerning the justification and salvation of believers,’ I say Election is prior to Faith, as being that by which Faith is appointed as the means of obtaining salvation. But if it signifies ‘the Decree by which God determines to bestow salvation on some one,’ then Faith foreseen is prior to Election. For as believers alone are saved, so only believers are predestinated to salvation. But the Scriptures alone know no Election, by which God precisely and absolutely has determined to save any one without having first considered him as a believer: for such an Election would be at variance with the Decree by which he hath determined to save none but believers” (James Arminius, “Nine Questions,” Works II: 64).

Does Philip define unconditional election as the latter, the election by which God selects some for salvation apart from faith? If he does, then both Arminius and I would disagree. As Arminius notes well, “as believers alone are saved, so only believers are predestinated to salvation.” Never in Scripture do we find that anyone is “predestined to believe”---and yet, Calvinists would have to prove that individuals are predestined to believe if they desire to make their case for unconditional election.

God alone gives life; Philip, Arminius, and I agree. But where we disagree concerns to whom God desires to give life. I agree that God desires to give life to all persons, since He died for the world (John 3:16) and desires that “all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Scripture itself is why I believe that Reformed Arminianism is the most biblically faithful theology of our time. I will respond to more of Philip’s comment in the days to come. God bless. 

The Application of the Atonement (John 3:16-18)

Timote Afu, one of the followers of this site (Center for Theological Studies or “CTS”), e-mailed me recently about the application and appropriation of the atonement. I promised him that I would begin to blog on this issue, so I decided to start doing that now. For the next few posts, I will work through some simple passages regarding “all” and what “all” means in those specific contexts.

I will begin with comments from “The Five Points of Calvinism”:

“There are two classes of texts that speak of Christ’s saving work in general terms: (a) those containing the word ‘world’ and (b) those containing the word ‘all’...one reason for the use of these expressions was to correct the false notion that salvation was for the Jews alone. Such phrases as ‘the world,’ ‘all men,’ ‘all nations,’ and ‘every creature’ were used by the New Testament writers to emphatically correct this mistake. THESE EXPRESSIONS ARE INTENDED TO SHOW THAT CHRIST DIED FOR ALL MEN WITHOUT DISTINCTION (i.e., He died for Jews and Gentiles alike), BUT THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO INDICATE THAT CHRIST DIED FOR ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION (i.e., He did not die for the purpose of saving each and every lost sinner)” (“The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented, Second Edition” by David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004, page 50).

Interestingly enough, the quote above provides “all” (and in this case, I do mean “all) of the explanation of these men regarding universal atonement. They have nothing else to say on these verses, which leaves me wondering if they had nothing else to say because they didn’t know how to explain these passages in their system (which says that Christ died only for some). However, the most interesting thing happens: when they attempt to explain their view, they give one-and-a-half pages worth of Bible verses. I think I smell a rat here...

Let’s tackle one of the Bible references provided that argues for a universal atonement: John 3:16-17. I selected this passage because it seems to be a familiar one that every Christian knows. At least in my experience, it seems to be the case that, no matter how young of a Christian you are, one can always recite John 3:16-17 by heart.

The text reads:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:16-17, English Standard Version).

Here’s a question I would pose to Calvinists: explain the use of “world” in this verse. What does “world” mean here? If a Calvinist says, “all the elect in the world,” then I would pose this question next: “So then, does that mean that the elect in the world can be condemned?” They may say, “Yes, the elect were condemned as fallen humanity”; but if they do so, the word “world” must be broadened to include the “non-elect” as well (since the non-elect are also part of the world). If they say “no,” then I would respond, “so God sent His Son into the world so that “the ELECT MIGHT BE SAVED through Him” (substituting "elect" for "the world")?

This last question is one that will make even the Calvinist stumble. If God sent Jesus to die on behalf of the elect, then how is there a way that they “might be saved”? If Jesus died for the elect, then their salvation is certain, right? So if the elect will infallibly be saved, why does the language itself include “possibility” and not “certainty”? Look at the phrase “might be saved”. The word used here in the Greek is “sothe,” which is a Present Passive Subjunctive. The idea of the “subjunctive” indicates potentiality (“might, could, should, would, may”). These words demonstrate possibility, but not certainty. The world “could” be saved (there is the opportunity for universal salvation), but this doesn’t mean that the world “will” be saved (does not provide certainty). And as experience shows, there are those in the world who die everyday without coming to faith in Christ. The subjunctive “might be saved” is more of a potential opportunity (more truth-telling) than most people realize.

If you get a Calvinist to admit that the elect will infallibly be saved, then they will have to deny that “the world” of John 3:16-17 involves just the elect; they will also have to include the non-elect, for fear of making it possible that the elect could fall away or not be saved at all.

A little further into John 3 shows that my interpretation of “world” is correct. Read the next verse:

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18, ESV).

Notice there are two types of people mentioned in verse 18, not just “the one who believes.” This supports my argument above about what is meant by “the world” in John 3. In addition to the believer, there is also the non-believer, “whoever does not believe.” Now, notice what Jesus says about the non-believer:

“whoever does not believed is condemned already, BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF THE ONLY SON OF GOD” (Jn. 3:18b).

Is the non-believer guilty for not believing? Yes. And why? “because he has not believed,” because he has refused to exercise his faith in God. The non-believer is not guilty because he has been damned from before the foundations of the world (as many Calvinists seem to say); no, the non-believer is guilty because he is “able to believe” but refuses to do so.

The fact that “the world” includes “the one who believes” and “the one who does not believe” testifies to the universality of the atonement. Christ died for every human creature.

However, while there is universality to the atonement, there is also exclusivity (or restriction). Only those who believe will receive redemption: “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM should...have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16). Christ died for both those who believe and those who do not (3:18); but without faith, one will not be saved. The condition for salvation is faith (“the one who believes”).

What about those who do not believe? Ken Keathley writes:

“So what about those for whom the Savior died who yet reject Him? In their case, the atonement testifies against them, and serves as the basis of condemnation. As John declares, ‘Anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God’ (John 3:18b)” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, pages 196-197).

The reason why the unbeliever can be condemned is that he had a genuine opportunity and genuine ability to believe.

I will deal with more passages regarding universal atonement or reference to “the world” in the coming posts.

The Missing Link

I discussed yesterday that while God’s Word tells wives to submit (not single women!), it does not tell the husband to RULE over his wife! Today, though, I wanna go back to some of the Scriptural passages we examined yesterday regarding this discussion of men being in charge—Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 3. In addition, I’d like for us to examine a part of Genesis 2. This discussion will focus on the implications of these passages of Scripture. It is my belief that complementarians are half-dividing the Word of Truth on this matter.
Let’s take a look at Ephesians 5. Just so everyone can read it without worry, I’ll paste it here:

22(AR) Wives,(AS) submit to your own husbands,(AT) as to the Lord. 23For(AU) the husband is the head of the wife even as(AV) Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is(AW) himself its Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit(AX) in everything to their husbands.

Notice something here: there are two relationships being compared to each other—husband/wife and Christ/church. In both relationships, there is a leader and a follower: in the home, the husband is the leader, and in the church, Christ is the leader. Both the husband and Christ are heads, but the husband is ONLY HEAD OF THE HOME! He is head of the home because of Eve’s punishment back in Genesis 3. However, Christ is the head of the church and should be Lord of the home (the husband is the lowercase “l,” lord of the home).

Somehow, complementarians have distorted the Scriptures to their own liking. They will totally affirm the first part of Ephesians 5:22, that “the husband is the head of the wife.” But they will stop at that—to them, the fact that the husband is the head of the home means that now, the MALE is the leader of the FEMALE (all men are over all women); and then, when it gets to the church, now, the MAN rules over the WOMAN in church. Complementarians take God’s words to Eve in Genesis 3:16 and misapply it across all of society. I even know of complementarians who have said that if a woman is in a manager’s position over her husband in any given company, the man should leave that company (because the woman is not to be over the man, from 1 Timothy 2)! How absurd! Does God’s Word REALLY say that? Of course not.

Let’s look at the second part of verse 22: “For the husband is the head of the wife EVEN AS CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH…” Did you catch that? Christ is the head of the church, not the man, the husband, the deacon, the preacher, the teacher, the Pastor, the trustees, the musicians, the choir members, etc! NOONE IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH BUT CHRIST ALONE! The husband is the lowercase “lord” of the home, but Christ is the uppercase “LORD” of the church! The man’s sphere runs to the home and ONLY the home; it stops when he reaches the church. Yes, his wife is supposed to acknowledge his headship in public before all, but his headship doesn’t give him the right to determine what gifts his wife has or whether or not she can use them. That’s not the husband’s call. The husband’s job is to lead in the marriage, NOT IN THE CHURCH! The husband only has one wife (monogamous), so he was never given the job of running the church, where there are lots of married women and single women alike. The husband has no authority over other women—only his wife!

Let’s look at 1 Timothy 3. Yesterday, I made the point that women can serve in the church as leaders as well; that, based on the chapter, Paul includes women when he mentions them later in 1 Timothy 5 and calls them “despots of the home” (literal translation of the Greek word “oikodespotein”). But let’s reexamine 1 Timothy 3 again:

1The saying is(A) trustworthy: If anyone aspires to(B) the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore(C) an overseer[a] must be above reproach,(D) the husband of one wife,[b](E) sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable,(F) hospitable,(G) able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but(H) gentle, not quarrelsome,(I) not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity(J) keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for(K) God’s church? (1 Tim. 3:1-5, ESV)

One of the qualifications for the leader is to be a good manager of his household. But notice what Paul says in verse 5: “for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”

I want us to look at the two verbs in this rhetorical question of Paul’s: the first is “manage” and the second is “care.” Paul uses the word “manage” with regards to the home (“household”); but what does he use in regards to the church? Does he use the word “manage”? Does he use the word “despot” as he did with the young widows? No. Paul doesn’t do anything of the sort—he uses the Greek word “epimeleisetai,” meaning “to care for.”

Don’t you see a difference in these two words? When a person manages something, they are over everything, as is a manager in a manufacturing plant or a corporation, for example. But does a person have to be the manager “to take care of” something? No.
To illustrate my point biblically, let’s go back to Genesis 2. Let’s read one verse of this chapter:

15The LORD God took the man(O) and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. (Genesis 2:15, ESV).

Notice that, although Adam was the first human created, he was placed in the Garden as a steward—to work and keep the Garden. He was God’s assistant, but HE DID NOT OWN THE GARDEN! God owned the Garden, but He chose Adam to work it and keep it. And this is what God expects the leader in the church to do—work in the church and keep the church pure and spotless from temptation and error (to maintain doctrinal purity). So, while the man (or woman) can manage their homes, they are not to RULE the church—but to work it and keep it. The Lord owns the church just as He owned the Garden of Eden. Therefore, there is no room for power in the church. All the power belongs to Christ and He dispenses it as He sees fit.

There is no direct link here between the husband as head of the home and as head of the church; yet, it’s surprising that conservatives link “the church and home” in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. If you read works such as “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” by Grudem and Piper, you’ll find that they mention “church and home” or “home and church” several times throughout the pages. But the problem comes in when you have to prove that husbands were given RULE over the church, because they lead in the home—and that is proof that the complementarians don’t have.

This then, is the missing link—the connection between the husband leading in the home and leading in the church. Husbands, nor do wives, children, or church officials, serve as the head of the church. In fact, there is language from 1 Peter to tell us the role of overseers in the church:

2(C) shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight,[a](D) not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you;[b](E) not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3not(F) domineering over those in your charge, but(G) being examples to the flock.

Peter tells the elders not to “DOMINEER” over those they serve. What are the leaders to be? Shepherds. And as shepherds, they are to lead LIKE THE CHIEF SHEPHERD. And what does the Chief Shepherd do?

11(H) I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd(I) lays down his life for the sheep. 12He who is(J) a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and(K) leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and(L) scatters them. 13He flees because(M) he is a hired hand and(N) cares nothing for the sheep. 14(O) I am the good shepherd.(P) I know my own and(Q) my own know me, 15(R) just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and(S) I lay down my life for the sheep.

The undershepherds and other leaders of God’s church are to care for the church.
Nowhere in the passages above do we read of leaders RULING the church. If complementarians want to “connect the dots” and show why men are the leaders of the church, they will have to invent interpretations and perform “Olympic exegesis” to do it.