Arminian or Calvinist?

Recently we at the Paraclete Forum have received several inquiries on Calvinism vs. Arminianism. It seems that quite a few Christians these days are discussing the similarities and differences in these two theological schools of thought, as if they had to end up joining one camp or the other. Here is the latest inquiry:

"I have found your website and the wealth of information you have made available to be a vast help in my continuous journey of faith in Jesus Christ. I have to tell you I can't express enough my thanks also to you for also posting the Ray Stedman links that have helped me beyond belief in my walk.

Today I find myself in my journey concerned a little about this question of Calvinism and Arminianism, I have started reading some of your postings from the A.C. Custance writings, I hope i have his name correct. It has been somewhat helpful to me. But, I have to admit, I am a bit out of my depth when it comes to this portion of my faith. I had wished at times Ray Stedman was still around so I could ask him what his stance would be on this issue, I have come to believe much of what Ray has stated in his book Authentic Christianity that "nothing coming from me, and everything coming from God", could only be stated as a Calvinist. And for this teaching I am grateful, because I have found myself to be in such a depraved state at times that I know there is no other way I could have come to faith but by the power and grace of God.

Some of the questions I have raised have been answer as I continue to read these articles by Arthur Custance. I was hoping you might have an opinion you might be able to share with me on what your beliefs would be on this issue, and also, since it seems from your website and some of my readings over the years that you were relatively close to Pastor Ray that you might have an idea on what his beliefs were on this issue, and how I may find for myself what it is he believed regarding this long standing conflict in the church. I also would like to know what your opinion of the Calvary Chapel Movement is, I have been attending their Church's for a number of years, but have found myself noticing maybe a hint of Arminianism amidst their teachings. I heard the pastor from the Mars Hill church in Seattle (which you seem to recommend) make a comment also about the Calvary Chapel movement being Arminian in their beliefs. I did read the statement of faith by Pastor Chuck Smith regarding the issue at hand, and years ago I thought he put it relatively clear that somewhere in the middle of the two might the truth be found. I had felt at the time and for the past number of years this to be correct enough for me to believe, but recently I find myself troubled over this issue, and would like to resolve it once and for all.

Thanks so much for all your efforts in your website, and I look forward to our meeting in the clouds if not before. Blessings in Christ, Doug."

The tension that we all see in the two positions, Calvinism and its emphasis on God's sovereignty v. Arminianism and its emphasis on freewill, may be one of the greatest examples of a paradox we can find. Obviously, both positions can be well-reasoned and based on tons of scriptures. After all, the Bible is very clear that God created the universe and all that dwell therein. So, BIG is hardly adequate to describe this God. All power and knowledge is derived from Him, our Maker. But, the Bible gives us instance after instance of God offering us choices: Choose this day life or death. And most of us who know God know that even our own faith is a gift from Him. Our salvation is a gift, our redemption is a gift, and our knowledge of Him is a gift (a revelation from God). And, we also know that our stupid decisions can get us in a lot of trouble.

IMHO, the first step for me is to simply come to the realization that I am a human being, limited in knowledge and very prone to error. I cannot trust my own heart sometimes (which the Prophet Jeremiah points out: "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?" As we grow in maturity in Jesus, we can learn that trust is a very key component to this all—Paul clearly writes that we should not trust in man, but trust in God. So, it seems that we don't really need to trust in ourselves, but the one who is the Author and Finisher of our faith.

I've also come to understand that my choices are all limited in some way, as well. I cannot choose to wake up tomorrow and be 25 years old. I can't take thought and add to my height or my intelligence, or to think my way into knowing everything, just like God. Knowledge, at times, can make one arrogant—and we would come right back to the primal sin of pride—to be like God, the sin of Lucifer, and the sin of Adam and Eve. No, I will never be like God, and from the first Adam, our job is to trust in the one who is worthy of trust, the only one and the only God.

I can also tell you that the Calvary Chapel position is certainly not Arminian. It is an attempt to embrace both sides and the apparent paradox. The problems appear to be in the extreme views.  For example, an extreme view of Calvinism makes it very close to absolute determinism or a kind of fatalism, that our decisions cannot possibly change anything. God chooses us, and his grace is irresistible. So, it is not possible to resist or fight against the sovereign will of God. I heard RC Sproul, (a marvelous theologian on the more extreme side of Calvinism), on the radio the other day. He was discussing all the different kinds of wills that God has, sovereign will, permissive will, prescriptive will, on and on. It was a challenge following all the various ways one can look at God's will. But, I find it very difficult to think that this type of esoteric philosophical debate is available to all human beings. Didn't Jesus have particular sympathy for little children?  We are to be like children, and trust our loving Father.

I am of the belief that the Gospel is so deep that (old line) elephants can swim in it, but babies can never drown in it. The elegance of the Gospel story, that Jesus died for my sins, is the kind of elegance and sophistication that philosophers and theologians can chew on for their entire lifetimes, but it is simple enough for the uneducated person to grasp in all its glory. "For God so loved the world..." and that includes the educated as well as the uneducated, the literate and illiterate.

Well, maybe God has a dozen different kinds of will, and when He says that He desires that none will perish, that's the kind of will that does not determine my choice. But, when Jesus said to His disciples for the first time, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men," that would be a good time to follow Him. Even Jesus had one follower who was obviously not like the others. Was that God's fault? Maybe be yes, maybe no. Does it change the value of His death and the importance of His resurrection? Absolutely not.

The Arminian side, in its more extreme form, says that, in order to give human beings a true choice, God cannot see the future. (He didn't make us little robots that continually walk around giving Him praise and adoration. God seeks fellowship, not automatons.) For, if God can see the future, then the future could not be any other way. If God could see a flower bloom at 6 o'clock tomorrow morning, than that flower must bloom at 6 o'clock tomorrow morning. So, say, God sees that you, Doug, make a choice to follow Him ten years from now; His vision of the future means that you will, indeed, make a decision to follow Him. In a sense, His knowledge of the future would cause your decision to occur because it could not be otherwise—He saw it! In the Arminian view, God is running along the corridors of time (another well-known saying) with you; so, therefore, He is bound by His own laws of Space and Time. He can only be in one place at one time. In this view, omnipresence can only refer to place, and not time, with serious ramifications. (Omnipotence also has to be seen in that context.)

I had a conversation with a group of devoted Arminians, and they spoke of God's omniscience, but not in any way that I was used to (which does not make them automatically wrong). God's knowledge is inexhaustible; He knows all things. However, they added that He only knows what is knowable, and future events are not knowable. (Much of pop psychology confirms this, in a way, that we cannot know what a human being will do next.) They suggested that God's mind is like a humungous super-computer that can figure out all possibilities and probabilities. That's the only way they could see that God could have possibly spoken through the Prophets, e.g., predicting by name that Cyrus would be the person who began the return to Jerusalem by exiled Jews.

Well, I hope it's obvious that this extreme view overlooks the character of God as revealed in scripture quite a bit. The God of Arminianism is finite, a lot like me. How can God exist before the beginning if we can trace His existence to some kind of beginning? "In the beginning, God..." certainly implies that God was already there at the beginning of time—or was that only the beginning of His creation? Did God suddenly spring into existence? My Bible tells me that God exists from the vanishing point (infinite past) to the vanishing point (infinite future). After all, He revealed to Moses that His name is "I am that I am." He doesn't have a name by which we have to distinguish Him from other gods or goddesses: He simple exists, always has, and always will, despite what some recent philosophers say (that God is dead).

The Arminian position appears rational in the sense that all points are reasoned, but it doesn't appear to me that the reasoning is based on Scripture first, and that all the inferences are made accordingly. On the contrary, it is a type of reasoning that seeks support for its premises, which is quite the opposite.

So, we bounce back to the Calvinist view that God is outside of time. He sees all things at once. It's like viewing a parade, but being able to see the head and the tail at the same time. Look, there! Doug just tripped on his shoelaces! If God sees you trip in the middle of the parade, He obviously did not cause you to trip; He just saw you trip. We are the ones marching along the corridors of Time, but God views Time in a much different way. (See http://ldolphin.org/time.html). Chuck Smith has a similar view.

But, apparently, God still has chosen to respect our choices. Otherwise, how could a just and merciful God justify anyone going to Hell? If God's will is the only thing that we had to consider, then we wind up being in the position of saying that God created billions of people just to rot in Hell and experience eternal torment. That God is both small and mean. Calvinism, too, starts out with a set of premises and deductively backs into many of its conclusions, having to reinterpret the many scriptures that point to choice and freewill.

In my experience, I know many people who have heard the Gospel and flat out rejected it—it's too hot, it's too cold, it's too simple, it's too complicated. They consciously reject the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. "There can't be one absolute truth, or one true religion. How narrow-minded and intolerant!" They believe that all so-called religions say the same basic thing. Obviously, most of these people have never really examined the claims of Jesus nor the claims of other religious leaders. But, anyone who exists has to wonder where they came from; and, we all die, so it makes sense that we should ask sincerely what's gonna happen when we die. As bad as our corporate testimony can be sometimes, there are also the eyewitness accounts of millions of people who have met God in Jesus, who have experienced His grace, mercy, and love—yet we, just like Jesus, are subject to the scorn and ridicule of people who think they're too smart to believe such a simple story about a carpenter from Nazareth, the Messiah, and King of the Jews. How could one man's death pay for my sins? What is sin, anyway?

Well, if the world rejects Christ, then it is certainly not God's fault. He thought of a plan that anyone and everyone could figure out. All you have to do is seek, and you'll find; knock, and the door will be opened unto you. Believe, and have everlasting life. I know lots of people who will know that God's judgment will be absolutely fair, even if they did reject His love for their entire lives. After all, God did say through Isaiah, "Come, let us reason together."

So, in my opinion, the middle point is a good place to be. I grow everyday in my knowledge of the greatness of the Living God, His mercy, and His amazing grace. I also find that I reluctantly learn to trust and obey. The world, my carnal nature, the real enemy, all the things that the Bible teaches us, act in me. "O wretched man that I am!" I'm so glad that God is there, that He is faithful when I am faithless, to pick me up when I trip, and to set me on His path, the narrow path.

My personal conclusion is that many people want to follow one position or the other to its logical extreme. But, the extreme Arminian has to overlook an awful lot of evidence, just as the extreme Calvinist has to interpret every time the word "choice" enters the text. If my choice has nothing whatsoever to do with accepting the gift of the cross, then what possible effect could evangelism have? Why would Jesus tell us to go into all the world and preach the Gospel? What's the point?

Right smack in the middle of the Bible is a very curious book called the Song of Songs. It details (rather graphically) a romantic relationship between Solomon and the Shulamite woman. Jews have traditionally interpreted it as a picture of God (Y-H-V-H) and Israel, His bride. (But she, as a nation, rejected her beloved. Just read the prophets.) Christians have interpreted it as a picture of Jesus and His Bride, the church (the people, not the steeple). Jesus spoke of wedding feasts, and we have that picture pretty much throughout scriptures.

However, how does one become a bride? Doesn't she have to say, "Yes"? Without her consent, there is no true marriage. Many are called, but few are chosen...curious way to put it, no?

So, out I go into the highways of my life. I try to have a reason for this hope that is in me. And, I will tell people about the wedding feast of the Lamb. Unless they're invited, they simply won't know, and they won't have anything to respond to. But, I also know that it is the Holy Spirit who draws all men to Jesus. So, I don't even have to trust my inept ways of communicating, or all the times that I say the wrong thing or nothing at all. We are all called to repentance, a repentence of the heart. After that, we learn to trust and obey.

I don't suppose I've cleared up anything. But, I can tell you that once you stop trying to know everything and be like God, it does kinda become easier.

Feel free to write me back and express exactly where your problems are. This was just a general overview. Sorry it's so long. Blessings, Fred

Reformed Theology and Regeneration

This paper is by David Dunlap, Bible & Life Ministries, Inc. (3116 Gulfwind Drive, Land O’Lakes, FL 34639. It is taken from a larger work entitled Limiting Omnipotence—The Consequences of Calvinism—A Study of Crucial Issues in Reformed and Dispensational Theology. This paper is reproduced with the author’s permission.

In 1883 on the island of Krakatao, in the Straits of Sunda, a volcano erupted, splitting mountains from top to bottom and scattering rock, landscape, and debris into the sea. Nothing was left of the island but a lifeless mass 100 feet deep of lava and volcanic ash. Observers estimated that 36,000 people lost their lives, thereby making this one of the deadliest eruptions in history. Scientists declared positively that no animal or vegetable life would be able to survive. Nevertheless, over the next three years, flowers and ferns began to sprout out of the dark soil. Seeds had been carried there by the wind and the sea. By 1897, many portions of the ground were covered with vegetation. Soon the entire island was covered with plant growth, and an array of birds, animals, and insects populated the island. This account vividly illustrates what takes place spiritually when the life of God completely transforms the sin-darkened souls of men through faith in Christ. The name the Bible gives for this experience is regeneration or “quickening” (KJV).

The term “new birth” never occurs in the Bible; the noun “regeneration” occurs only twice in the Bible (Titus 3:5, Mt. 19:28). The Greek word translated “regeneration” is “palingenesia”, which, when broken down into its component parts, means “born-again” (“palin”= again; “genesia”= birth). While the term new birth never occurs, related words occur many times, such as “new creation”, “born again”, and “new man”.

What is regeneration? Regeneration is the one-time experience of receiving new life in Christ, when the work of a new creation is begun, and the process of sanctification is set in motion. The regenerate man is no longer the man he once was. By virtue of the work of the Holy Spirit, the new life (created after the image of God) has come into the souls of men. This new nature has its own desires, affections, and interests—they are all spiritual, rooted in Christ, and God-centered. “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit”; the new nature is spiritual, for it shares the nature of the One who imparts it. The believer is made “a partaker of the divine nature...” (2 Peter 1:4). However, the old nature remains within the believer, struggling with the new.

The Reformed View of Regeneration

Students of Holy Scripture offer differing views on the divine order in regard to the new birth. This debate is not merely an academic exercise, but one which has far-reaching consequences. Clear biblical thinking in this area greatly helps the serious Christian. Current Reformed theology teaches that regeneration, or new birth, must precede faith. It maintains that since unregenerate man is dead and unable to respond to the gospel, he must first be “born again” so that he can receive the gift of faith. This regenerative work of God will only take place in the lives of the elect as God irresistibly draws them. This all must take place in this order; otherwise biblical salvation, it is maintained, is no longer of God in His grace, but rather of man through self-effort. Calvinist professor Dr. R. C. Sproul sets forth this position when he writes:

In regeneration, God changes our hearts. He gives us a new disposition, a new inclination. He plants a desire for Christ in our hearts. We can never trust Christ for our salvation unless we first desire Him. This is why we said earlier that regeneration precedes faith. [R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale Publishers, 1986), p. 118]

In a similar vein, concerning regeneration Reformed psychologist Jay Adams writes:

Only God can bring life to dead souls to enable them to believe. He does this when and where and how He pleases by His Spirit, who regenerates, or gives life leading to faith...As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, for they cannot say that. No man knows except Christ Himself who are His elect for whom He died. [Jay Adams, Competent To Counsel, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970), p. 70]

On the other hand, non-calvinists teach that new birth occurs after an unregenerate man exercises faith in Christ. The unregenerate man, after he is drawn by the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, enlightened by the power of the Word of God, gripped by grace, and prodded through prayer, is then enabled by God to exercise faith in the finished work of Christ. Although unregenerate man is dead in trespasses and sin and at enmity with God, this does not mean that he is unable to express faith. God’s sovereign design does, however, lay emphasis upon the infinite power of the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, the grace of God, the will of God, and the Word of God. Without this work of God, no man would ever be saved.

Regeneration and Infant Salvation

Calvinism also teaches that infants, when yet unborn, are regenerated, even though they have no knowledge of Christ; and that, upon birth, infant baptism is to be practiced as a sign that the child is regenerate. John Calvin believed that all the children of believers were spiritually regenerated in the womb. To complete the salvation process Calvin also suggested that God granted a unique, supernatural faith to these infants in the womb. This would certainly add a new twist to the term “child-like faith.” But how is this all possible? John Calvin writes:

But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be regenerated by the Lord. ...Many He certainly has called and endued with true knowledge of Himself, by internal means, by the illumination of the Spirit, without the intervention of preaching. [John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Vol.11, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmanns, 1962), p. 541,542]

The issue of the salvation of the children of the elect soon occupied the minds of many leading Calvinists. How could one know if the children of the elect would eventually come to Christ, or might some never come to trust Him as Savior? Calvinists reasoned: if only the elect are regenerated and only the regenerated can be saved, is there any way of knowing if children are elect? John Calvin, comforted the hearts of many by stating that God had already made provision for that need. He suggested that all the children of the elect will be saved. Calvin writes:

Our children, before they are born, God declares that He adopts for His own when He promises He will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. In this promise their salvation is included. [John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Vol.11; (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmanns, 1962), p.525]

What are the spiritual consequences of such speculation? First of all, if this is true, we need not concern ourselves with the spiritual condition of our children and our grandchildren. Why? Because if we are elect, our children are also elect, which means their children are also elect, and so on, until our family line comes to an end. While a Calvinist may find comfort in this view, he needs to flip the coin to see what lies on the other side. If it follows that a “Calvinist” child is elect and will be saved because of his parents’ election, would it not also be true that if that child never believes in Jesus Christ, this proves that the parents were never elect? If a parent proves not to be elect, it would mean that his father could not be elect either. The Calvinist “election domino” must logically fall in both directions. Furthermore, Scripture stresses that children are not saved because the parents were elect but because children themselves possessed faith in Jesus Christ unto salvation (Acts 16:31-32,2 Tim. 3:14-15).

The Reformed View and the Scriptures

Many have noted that the Reformed view of regeneration is in stark contrast to Scripture. The Bible clearly establishes that the blessings of salvation, the indwelling Holy Spirit in the life of a believer, eternal life, and regeneration never precede faith, but are always the result of faith.

• Ephesians 1:13 states, “In whom also after that you believed, you were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.” At the time of belief, as a result of faith, the believer receives the sealing of the Holy Spirit.

• John 3:16 “...that whosoever believes on Him should not perish but have everlasting life”. Again the same truth is emphasized—belief precedes salvation.

• Acts 16:31 “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your house.” The order of salvation is clear; belief is first and then salvation follows. Faith is a condition of salvation.

• Romans 5:1 “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”. Regeneration is not a condition for receiving justification. But notice it is faith first, followed by justification. This is the pattern we have throughout the Bible in virtually every verse which is connected to this subject.

The godly Bible teacher Samuel Ridout, setting forth the great importance of faith prior to new life, writes:

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever” (I Peter 1:23). New birth is by the word of God. That it is a sovereign act of God, by His Spirit, none can question. But this verse forbids us from separating, as has sometimes been done, new birth from faith in the gospel. It has been taught that new birth precedes faith; here we are told that the Word of God is the instrument in new birth. “Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God”; “the word which by the gospel is preached.” Thus while we can distinguish between faith and new birth, we cannot separate them. John 3:3 and 3:16 must ever go together. There is no such anomaly possible as a man born again, but who has not yet believed the gospel. [Samuel Ridout, Numerical Bible, Vol.6, (NY : Loizeaux Bro., 1903), p. 148-149]

Similarly, Dr. John Walvoord, former president of Dallas Theological Seminary, sets forth the necessity of faith before eternal life or regeneration is received:

Eternal life is not possessed until faith in Christ is exercised. Eternal life is not to be confused with efficacious grace, or that bestowal of grace which is antecedent to faith. Eternal life is to be identified with regeneration and is received in the new birth. It is resultant rather than causative of salvation, but is related to conversion or the manifestation of the new life in Christ. [Everett F. Harrison, editor, Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), p. 195]

Very often, Reformed writers will use Ezekiel 36:26 to garner support for the view that regeneration precedes faith. This verse reads, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” However, it appears from a careful contextual study of this passage and related verses, that the Calvinist view is not supported. Firstly, we find that this passage is not addressing individual believers and the manner in which they are to be saved, but rather, the prophetic “house of Israel” (v.17). The thrust of the prophet’s argument is what God in His grace will do to restore Israel to her land in a future day. Regeneration of the individual unbeliever is not the context, but rather, the nation of Israel. Secondly, in an earlier passage Ezekiel writes, “Cast away all your transgressions ...and make yourself a new heart and a new spirit”( 18:31). Here, the responsibility is placed in the hands of man for a new heart and a new spirit. The gift of a new heart signifies the new birth of the nation of Israel through the new covenant, by the renewal of the Holy Spirit. However, Ezekiel also conditions the reception of the new heart upon repentance (18:31). Those who use this passage to support the view that regeneration of the unsaved precedes faith appear to be guilty of stretching Scripture to fit a particular theological view.

The Reformed View and Logic of C. H. Spurgeon

Many have seen great difficulty with the Reformed view of regeneration. One of the most obvious shortcomings is that if a man has been regenerated, what need does he have then for faith? For he is saved already, albeit without the biblical prerequisite— faith. If regeneration precedes faith, then faith is unnecessary, for the one regenerated is saved already. Even some respected Calvinists have pointed out this apparent theological contradiction. Calvinist C. H. Spurgeon, in his famous sermon “The Warrant of Faith”, argues this point with his characteristic style:

If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. Am! only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners. [C. H. Spurgeon, Sermon: Warrant of Faith, (Pasadena,TX: Pilgrim Publications, 1978), p.3]

Spurgeon, with great insight, points to three weaknesses in this traditional Reformed position. Firstly, regeneration prior to faith will be a great barrier to preaching the true soul-saving gospel. He says, “...it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ.” For if someone is regenerated already, why must the gospel be preached? Hereby, the great themes of the gospel message such as sin, judgment, love, and grace are rendered unnecessary. Secondly, it eliminates the reality of the spiritual battle in winning souls for Christ. Spurgeon says, “...and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already...Am I only to preach faith to those who have it?” Where is the spiritual battle, prevailing prayer, and power of the Holy Spirit in evangelism? For they are saved already. There is no earnest wrestling with souls for the cause of the gospel. Thirdly, it makes the preacher wait at bay with the gospel. Spurgeon writes, “Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine?” Are preachers to wait with the spiritual cure, the gospel, until a lost soul is regenerated and then, when he is saved, bring him the gospel? This view takes the urgency and the “Now” out of gospel preaching. Scriptures are clear, “Now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.”(2 Cor. 6:2). According to the “prince of preachers” this view of regeneration is a hindrance to one who brings good news and a contradiction of the general tenor of Scripture.

Regeneration and the Preaching of the Gospel

This leads us to consider the consequences of the Reformed view of regeneration upon gospel preaching. We must admit that some great Reformed gospel preachers were used of God to bring many to Christ, including Whitfield and Spurgeon. But this was in spite of the inconsistency between their theological position and the message they so effectively proclaimed. Anyone reading Spurgeon’s sermons, for example, will discover that while he frequently uses the word “elect”, he did not do so in such a way that sinners could not be included if they so desired. However Reformed theologians have produced a system that is as unorthodox as it is inconsistent. Unfortunately, this theology has been a great hindrance to the unfettered proclamation of the gospel. Eighteenth century Calvinistic theologian Dr. John Gill, illustrates the withering effect of Calvinist theology on the preaching of the gospel. During the tenure of Dr. Gill at a Reformed church, this congregation, which at one time numbered 1, 200, dwindled down to a mere shadow of its original size. C. H. Spurgeon, though a Calvinist himself, pointed to Calvinism as the reason for the marked decline:

During the pastorate of my venerated predecessor, Dr. Gill, this Church, instead of increasing, gradually decreased...the system of theology with which many identify his (Gill’s) name has chilled many churches to their very soul, for it has led them to omit the free invitations of the gospel, and to deny that it is the duty of sinners to believe in Jesus. [Iain Murray, Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching, (Calisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1995), p. 120]

To the Calvinist, the preaching of the gospel is an exercise in futility if a person has not been regenerated. According to the Calvinist, the first thing that the unbeliever must get is regeneration. But regeneration is given sovereignly and irresistibly by God alone. There is nothing an unsaved man can do to produce regeneration; furthermore, there is nothing he would want to do since he is dead, without even the slightest desire for spiritual things. We now discover one of the great inconsistencies in Calvinism: the work of the unbeliever as a “living-dead man.” Calvinism states that total depravity means the complete inability to desire, understand, think, or learn about God and His salvation. However, on the other hand, Calvinism insists on the depraved man seeking, learning about, and praying to God for his regeneration. Notice the explanation of Calvinist writer, W. G. T. Shedd, in Dogmatic Theology, as he writes:

The Calvinist maintains that faith is wholly from God, being one of the effects of regeneration. [W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol.11, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, n.d.), p. 472,512-514]

In another place Shedd explains that since an unbeliever is unregenerated, there are certain steps necessary before he can be saved:

One, read and hear the divine Word . . . Two, give serious application of the mind, and examination of truth in order to understand and feel its force . . . Three, pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit both as a convicting and regenerating Spirit . . . prayer for regenerating grace is a duty and a privilege for the unregenerate man. [W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol.11, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, n.d.), p. 472,512-514]

The popular Calvinist writer A. W. Pink also insists that the unbeliever must plead with God for his regeneration before he can be saved. He writes,

. . . his first duty is to set his ‘seal that God is true’ . . . His second duty is to cry unto God for enabling power—to ask God in mercy to over come his enmity, and draw him to Christ; to bestow on him the gifts of faith and repentance. [A. W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992), p.160]

Is this the New Testament message of salvation? Is the evangelist to exhort the lost to pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit? Is there a New Testament example of anyone ever charging one who is lost to pray for regeneration? I suggest there is no such example. Is the unbeliever to pray for the gift of regeneration or to believe on Christ? The high price of salvation has been paid in full by our Lord, and He invites the sinner to believe on Him and receive eternal life. Does a criminal need to plead and beg for his prison release, while the warden stands before him with the signed pardon in his outstretched hand? It is not a time for a prisoner to beg and to seek, but a time to receive. In like manner, the work of the cross is complete, the ultimate price has been paid by Christ for every man, the gospel offer goes to all, now the sinner must receive it by faith. This strange new gospel turns the salvation of God into something to be sought, instead of something that is to be received. Is our gospel message “believe and thou shalt be saved” or pray and seek and ask for regeneration? The New Testament is clear: the work of salvation is finished by the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ; the unsaved need not pray for regeneration, but believe on the Lord Jesus Christ “and thou shalt be saved”.

Regeneration and Relationship to Christ

Calvinism teaches that God first regenerates the elect, and then at a later point in time, this leads to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. In the Reformed view of regeneration, our new life in Christ is separated from a new relationship with Christ. Calvinism teaches that a baby is regenerated in the womb, and a person can be regenerated for years before he is saved. However, when the Holy Spirit does His work of regeneration in our lives, at the same time He relates us to a Person, and the gift of eternal life unites us to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. John writes, “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent” (John 17:3). It is certainly a strange “regeneration”, to be alive by the Spirit of God, but not know Christ by faith. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, in his Systematic Theology explains the link between regeneration and relationship:

The important fact, never to be forgotten in the doctrine of regeneration, is that the believer in Christ has received eternal life. This fact must be kept free from all confusion of thought arising from the concept of regeneration which makes it merely an antecedent of salvation, or a preliminary quickening to enable the soul to believe. It is rather the very heart of salvation. [L S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. VI, (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), p. 117]

The Word of God teaches that a man receives life by receiving Jesus Christ as Savior. That is why our Lord said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life...” (John 14:6). He did not say, “I have the way, the truth, and the life”, as though the indwelling Christ was simply a force or power or merely an agent who gives eternal life. Our Lord, before raising Lazarus from the dead, says, “I am the resurrection, and the life.. .“(John 11:25); not “I have life to impart.” This brings home to us the fact that if we are to have life, we must have Jesus Christ. Since Jesus Christ is the life, the Spirit must bring us into a living, vital union with Him. New birth or regeneration can never be divorced from a living relationship with Christ. John the apostle writes, “He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life” (1 John 5:12). In the epistles of the apostle Paul, we find that he uses the carefully chosen and deeply meaningful term “in Christ” to explain this truth. Paul states, “if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (creation)...” (2 Cor. 5:17). Paul never imagined regeneration to precede faith in Christ, which in turn would precede the relationship of Christ in us, the “hope of glory”. The New Testament doctrine is clear: the Holy Spirit of God produces new birth, which gives us new life, and that new life is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

The work of regeneration is conditioned upon faith. Faith must precede new birth. It is God alone who imparts this new life in Christ. This new life in Christ provides a new nature or disposition, by which we now have a relationship with God. The spiritual order of God’s work of regeneration may have been best summarized by Sir Robert Anderson when he wrote:

It is by the Word that the sinner is born again to God. As Scripture declares, ‘We are born again by the word of God”— living and eternally abiding word of God.” And to bar all error, it is added: “And this is the word by which the gospel is preached unto you “— preached, as the Apostle has already said, “with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.” Not the Spirit without the Word, nor the Word without the Spirit, but the Word preached in the power of the Spirit. God is never arbitrary; but He is always sovereign. Men preach; the Spirit breathes; and dry bones live. Thus sinners are born again to God. [Sir Robert Anderson, Redemption Truths, (Kilmarnock, GB: Ritchie, 1940), p. 152]

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/ddregen.htm

FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE?
A Defense of Unlimited Atonement

For Whom Did Christ Die?

Introduction

Saved by grace alone
This is all my plea:
Jesus died for all mankind,
And Jesus died for me.

From the Hymn Grace! ‘tis a Charming Sound
Words by P. Doddridge

* * * * * * *

“Lord, I believe were sinners more
Than sands upon the ocean shore,
Thou hast for all a ransom paid,
For all a full atonement made.”

4th Stanza of JESUS THY BLOOD AND RIGHTEOUSNESS
by Nikolaus L. von Zinzendorf, 1739

* * * * * * *

Then let us all with one accord
Sing praises to our heavenly Lord,
That hath made heaven and earth of naught,
And with His blood mankind hath bought!

4th stanza of The First Noel, Old English Carol

For Whom Did Christ Die? Introduction

“What saith the Scriptures?” (Romans 4:3)

“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have [desires] all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time” (1 Timothy 2:3-6)
“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Hebrews 2:9).

“And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

The Bible Declares that...

He died for ALL (1 Tim. 2:6).
He died for ALL MEN (Rom. 5:18; 1 Tim. 4:10).
He died for US ALL, for ALL OF US (Isa. 53:6).
He died for the UNGODLY (Rom. 5:6).
He died for CHRIST-DENIERS (2 Peter 2:1).
He died for SINNERS (Rom. 5:8).
He died for EVERY MAN (Heb. 2:9).
He died for MANY (Matthew 20:28).
He died for the WORLD (John 6:33,51; John 1:29 and John 3:16).
He died for the WHOLE WORLD (1 John 2:2).
He died for the WHOLE NATION of Israel (John 11:50-51).
He died for the CHURCH (Eph. 5:25).
He died for His SHEEP (John 10:11).
He died for ME (Gal. 2:20).
The Scriptures teach that the sacrifice of the Lamb of God involved the sin of the world (John 1:29) and that the Saviour’s work of redemption (1 Tim. 2:6; 2 Pet. 2:1), reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19), and propitiation (1 John 2:2) was accomplished on behalf of all mankind (1 Timothy 4:10a). However, the cross-work of Christ is efficient, effectual and beneficial only for those who believe (1 Tim. 4:10b; John 3:16). To say it another way, Christ died a substitutionary death and made a payment for sins which was SUFFICIENT for all men, EFFICIENT only for the elect. A payment was made and provided for all, but only those who believe on Christ receive the benefits of this payment.

Definition Of Terms

It might help to begin by defining some of the terms which will be used in this paper:

The atonement: For our purposes here we are using this term to refer to the cross-work of Christ in general, with special emphasis upon Christ’s substitutionary death for our sins.

Unlimited atonement (general atonement, universal atonement): This is the doctrine which says that Christ died for the sins of all men, for all mankind, for every person, for the whole world. However, individuals do not benefit from the death of Christ in a saving way until they come to Christ and believe on Him. God’s gift has been purchased, offered and extended to all (1 John 5:11), but must be personally received by faith (1 John 5:12; John 1:12).

Limited atonement (definite atonement, particular atonement, limited redemption): This is the doctrine which says that Christ died only for the elect. He did not die for those who will eventually be in hell (such as Judas or Pharaoh). This is the third point of 5-point Calvinism, the letter “L” in the term TULIP.

The Elect: We use this term to refer to the saved of all ages. The term includes any or all of those who will eventually be in heaven and counted among the redeemed (compare Col. 3:12).

The Non-elect: We use this term to refer to those who will eventually perish in hell. It refers to those who persist in their unbelief and reject Christ even to the day they die. They are in hell, not because God elected them to damnation, but because “they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved” (see 2 Thess. 2:10-13). Those who go to heaven have only God to thank; those who go to hell have only themselves to blame.

Extreme Calvinism (Hyper-Calvinism, 5-point Calvinism): In this paper this term is simply another way of referring to those who believe in a limited atonement, that Christ died only for the elect.

Note: We recognize that no one likes to refer to themselves as “hyper” or “extreme.” Most consider themselves to be quite balanced. When a five-point Calvinist uses the term “hyper-Calvinist” he is referring to an even more extreme group of Calvinists who, for example, may not believe it is necessary to preach the gospel to sinners. They reason that those whom God has chosen will come to faith in Christ whether the gospel is preached or not. William Carey met such an extremist when he proposed his missionary work. His name was Mr. Ryland Sr., and he rebuked Carey with these words: “Young man, sit down! You are an enthusiast. When God pleases to converse with heathen He’ll do it without consulting you or me.” On the other side were strong Calvinists such as James Morison and Richard Baxter, but because they held firmly to an unlimited atonement and universal redemption, they were labeled as “low Calvinists.”

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/4whom01.htm

THE SAVIOUR OF ALL MEN
(1 Timothy 4:10)

“For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe” (1 Timothy 4:10).

There are those who teach that God has provided salvation only for those who are His elect. They would also teach a limited atonement, that Christ died on the cross only for the sins of God’s elect [those who will believe on Christ and be saved]. Such false teaching is answered by the verse cited above. This verse teaches that there is a sense in which God is the Saviour of all men and there is a special sense (”especially”) in which God is the Saviour of those who believe. Timothy should have had no problem understanding this because Paul had already written in this same epistle that there is a sense in which God is the Saviour of all. He is the Saviour of all men because He desires all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4) and because Christ died for all men (1 Tim. 2:6). Paul also made it clear that there is a special sense in which He is the Saviour of those who come to God through Christ and who believe and know the truth (1 Tim. 2:4; 4:3).

Extreme Calvinists have a problem with this verse because the expression “all men” must here be understood as referring to all humanity without exception. The verse teaches that out of that large class of people referred to as “all men” there is a smaller class of people referred to as “those who believe.” It is therefore obvious that the “all men” describes a group of people that includes more than just those who believe (more than “the elect”). He is the Saviour of all men. He is “especially” the Saviour of believers (in a special sense that is not true those who are not believers).

The expression “all men” is also found in 1 Timothy 2:4. Extreme Calvinists tells us that in this verse the “all men” means “all sorts of persons” (see Jay Adams’ translation). They say that it refers to all men without distinction but not all men without exception. Thus in 1 Timothy 2:4 they understand the “all men” to refer, not to all humanity, but to “the elect” which would include elect Jews and Gentiles, elect men and women, elect slaves and freemen, etc. In other words, according to their theology, God does not desire to save all men without exception, but God desires to save only His elect who belong to all kinds of classes of people (God’s elect are among the rich, the poor, the Jews, the Gentiles, etc.). This is forcing the text to fit one’s theology. We simply must let the verse say what it says: “God will have (desires) all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Indeed, God proved His desire for their salvation by sending Christ to die for them (1 Tim. 2:6)!

The extreme Calvinist must find a way to get around the clear statement of 1 Timothy 4:10. Jay Adams has tried to do this in a unique way in his translation: “who is the Saviour of all sorts of men, that is, of those who believe.” The problem with this is that the word “especially” cannot be translated “that is.” Adams is desperately trying to force the verse to fit his theology, even at the cost of abandoning sound principles of translation and ignoring the obvious meaning of words.

How then do extreme Calvinists explain this verse? They usually argue that the term “Saviour” is used in a temporal and not an eternal sense, meaning that God is the Preserver of all men or the Deliverer of all men, especially of those who believe. This runs contrary to all the standard translations (NASB,NIV,RSV,ASV,NEB, etc.) which render the word “Saviour” and not “Preserver.” Also their view raises this problem: Does God really preserve believers in a temporal, physical way more than He does unbelievers? Often God lets the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer in this life. Christ promised His followers persecution, tribulation and even death at the hands of unbelievers. The truth is that they who believe are likely to undergo great difficulty in this world. Believers must suffer through natural disasters (floods, tornados, fire, etc.) just as unbelievers. It is true that there is spiritual help and comfort for believers even in the midst of their trials, but in what sense are believers preserved physically and temporally in a very special sense that is not true of unbelievers? Often unbelievers seem to be well-preserved in this life, whereas believers are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things (1 Cor. 4:13).

It is true that sometimes the verb “save” is used in different ways, and it does not always mean salvation from sin. 1 Timothy 2:15 speaks of the Christian woman being saved from satanic deception (compare 1 Tim. 5:14-15). Also 1 Timothy 4:16 is likewise speaking of being saved from Satanic deception (compare 4:1), but this is not a good parallel to the verse under discussion because obviously Satanic deception is not the issue in 1 Timothy 4:10.

It is helpful to ask this: How does Paul use the expression “God our Saviour”? The term “Saviour” is applied to God in several other places beside 1 Timothy 4:10. See Luke 1:47; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2:3; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; and Jude 25. Will anyone venture to say that in these seven texts the meaning is “God the Preserver,” referring to temporal and not to eternal benefits?

The last place Paul used this term is very significant. It is found in 1 Timothy 2:3 (and see also 2:4 where “all men” is used). God is the Saviour of all men in the sense that He desires all men to be saved and Christ died for all (1 Tim. 2:4,6). The verse clearly refers to eternal salvation. The ASV understands 1 Timothy 4:10 in this way because in the marginal reference it gives these two verses: 1 Timothy 2:4 and John 4:42.

Is it a problem to say that God is the Saviour of all men? Only to the extreme Calvinists who say that the Saviour’s work on the cross had nothing to do with those who are not elect. The Bible speaks of God being “the Saviour of the world” (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14) and yet it is obvious that the world will not all be saved. The vast majority of those who make up “world” will perish because of their unbelief and rejection of God’s Saviour (John 3:16-18). And yet we must ask, how can the world reject Him as Saviour if He is not in some sense the world’s Saviour? How can a person reject the gospel if Christ did not die for him (compare 1 Cor. 15:1-4)? What is the good news that he is rejecting? The extreme Calvinist has no good news for anyone but the elect. You cannot reject something that is not genuinely offered to you. If there is no gospel offered to the “non-elect,” then how can they reject the gospel?

Why did Paul strive so diligently and why was he willing to suffer reproach as he labored in the gospel? Paul knew that he had a message for all men—a message of hope, a message of good news, a message of reconciliation. He also knew that as this message went forth it would be gladly received by some. There would be those who would believe and be actually saved. Note the similar motivation expressed by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:10. Paul was willing to endure all things for the sake of the elect, so that they might obtain the salvation that is found in Christ (not just so that they might have temporal and physical deliverance). Paul knew that God was using his gospel preaching (as he proclaimed the good news of Christ and His death on the cross to all men) as a means by which God would bring the elect to faith in Christ. Without preaching there can be no faith (Rom. 10:14-17). Paul was willing to suffer and labour and pray toward this end.

“His will is that all men should be saved, and He has made full and sufficient provision for the salvation of all, so that, as far as salvation stands in Him, He is the Saviour of all men...if God be thus willing for all to be saved, how much more shall He save them that put their trust in Him” (Alford). “While God is potentially Saviour of all, He is actually Saviour of the believers. So Jesus is termed `Saviour of the World’ (John 4:42)” (A.T.Robertson). “He has a general good-will to the eternal salvation of all men thus far that He is not willing that any should perish...He desires not the death of sinners; He is thus the Saviour of all men” (Matthew Henry).

Those who take this verse at face value cannot be in danger of teaching universalism. If God were to actually save all men, then how would believers be saved in a special sense? The very fact that the verse says that there is a special sense in which believers are saved implies that there is a sense in which unbelievers are not saved. Unbelievers are not actually saved, even though God the Saviour has desired their salvation and provided for it in the death of His Son. May we joyfully carry the gospel to all men, telling them that there is a Saviour for them who has died for them! May we urge them to receive this One who came to be their Saviour. “I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10-12).

George Zeller (revised March 2000; October 2003)

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/saviour.htm

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/reformed.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.