Charles Cameron’s article, “Arminius―Hero or Heretic?” explains that James Arminius comes as a bit of a surprise to both Calvinists and Arminians today, as he is closer to Calvinism than people expect. Cameron starts with some preliminaries about Arminius (his affinity for Calvin’s commentaries, his approach to reconciling differences and his commitment to scripture) and then dives into the 5 points of Calvinism. On Total Depravity, Cameron notes Arminius’ focus on grace, not freewill. On Election, Arminius teaches a Christocentric, evangelical, eternal, decree whereby God chooses to save believers. Cameron questions the “from eternity” and “based on foreknowledge” aspect of Arminius’ explanation of election. On the Atonement, Arminius avoids universalism, but advocates God’s universal love and the availability of forgiveness for all.

The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf.

Calvinists often argue that God’s love has failed if Christ’s atonement was made for all and yet not all are saved. I find it strange that Calvinists, who are so quick to criticize Arminians for holding to a man centered religion, argue that unless man responds to God’s love in saving faith, then His love for them has somehow failed. How is it that they feel comfortable equating the success or failure of God’s love with man’s response to that love? Is the nature or validity of God’s love dependant on man’s response? Doesn’t that seem a little man centered?

He Will Save His People from Their Sins:
How Calvinists Don’t Bother Looking from the Other Side

One of the more inane prooftexts for Calvinism is Matt 1:21, “…for he will save his people from their sins.” Calvinists argue that this is a statement of definiteness, that it does not say that Jesus will merely provide the opportunity of salvation for “his people,” but instead, that Jesus will definitely save his people. They claim that this flies in the face of Arminian assertions that through Jesus, God provides a way for everyone to be saved.

The quick Arminian retort is simple: “What!? Do you Calvinists think that Arminians deny that Jesus will definitely save his people??? Of course, we Arminians affirm that Jesus will definitely save his people, just as the text says.”

The claim that this is a Calvinist proof text for definite atonement registers 9.8 on the silly scale.

The one who has the Son has life; the one who does not have the Son of God has no life. These things I have written to you so that you will know that you have everlasting life; you who believe in the name of the Son of God -MGV

'These things', I am convinced, refers to the entire letter of 1 John. Thus, this statement gives us John's intent in writing this letter, and is central to understanding this book as a whole.

So let us consider the pastoral impetus of John's letter: that we may be assured that we are indeed saved. For the most part, I have attempted to focus on application in these devotionals rather than on theology, but this week, I must say a few words about the concept of assurance.

In Robert E. Picirilli’s article Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future, he explains that Reformation Arminians hold that God knows what we will freely choose in the future, whereas Neo-Arminians (a.k.a. Open Theists) disagree. With a little help from Arminius and Richard Watson, Pircirilli carefully defends his thesis that “there is nothing about the certainty of the future that is in conflict with the ability of human beings to make free, moral decisions” by defining certainty, necessity and contingency and demonstrating how contingency and certainty don’t conflict. Picirilli explains that the difference between Calvinists and Arminians is foreordination, not foreknowledge.

In his book Primitive Theology, John Gerstner, in the chapter entitled "A Primer on Free Will," writes, "Dear reader, you have in your hands a booklet entitled A Primer on Free Will. I don't know you, but I know a good deal about you. One thing I know is that you did not pick up this book of your own free will.

"You have picked it up and have started to read it, and now continue to read it, because you must do so. There is absolutely no possibility, you being the kind of person you are, that you would not be reading this book at this time."1

So, at the outset today, let me also say to you, dear reader, I do not know you, but I do know some things about you. One thing I know is that you did in fact choose to visit this site of your own free will.

In their book Why I am not an Arminian, Peterson and Williams writes, "That God sovereignly superintends and controls all things and that human beings are responsible for their choices and actions is repeatedly taught and demonstrated throughout the biblical record. God is sovereignly active in every moment.

"Yet that sovereign agency does not annul or limit human responsibility. Conversely, human agency is affirmed. We are not automatons. Human actions are not coerced or programmed at every moment by mysterious forces such that we wact contrary to our natures and desires. Yet this human freedom does not negate or limit God's agency" (emphases mine).1

In his blogpost on The Absolute Sovereignty of God, John Piper recalls a time in seminary when his notion of free will was challenged. According to Piper, this experience was one of "two experiences in my life that make Romans 9 one of the most important chapters in shaping the way I think about everything, and the way I have been led in ministry."

It can rightly be said that one's view of Romans 9 can indeed shape the way in which one thinks "about everything," as Piper put it. That is certainly cause for great joy and great alarm. For if one misinterprets Romans 9, then he or she will misinterpret just "about everything" else in Scripture.

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

First of all, we need to remember that this is God's testimony. This is not a testimony about God, but a testimony from God. Now a testimony implies that God has witnessed something. What He has witnessed is the work of His Son. He witnessed the work of His Son because it was done by His own hands, and by this work, He has given us eternal life.

Eternal life is a dynamic concept in Scripture. It has both a future and a present reality. Often we only think about the future aspect of it: we won't die. This is absolutely great, and it is one of the key aspects to the New Testament. However, it also has a present reality. Right now, I have something called eternal life.

In Brian Abasciano’s article Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner, Abasciano corrects Schreiner’s mistaken notion that corporate election denies any place to the individual. He argues that election is primarily corporate based on 1) the OT concept of election, 2) Paul’s statements about election to salvation and the fact that 3) first century culture was collectivist rather than individualistic. However, even though the primary focus of election is the community, the fact remains that the individual is elect secondarily as a member of the community. All this sets the stage for correctly understanding election in Romans 9 and answering Schreiner’s arguments. (link)

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

Without question, one of Owen’s favorite themes in the atonement is that of Christ as the Sin-Bearer. Owen quotes 1 Peter 2:24 and Isaiah 53 throughout much of his book. This concept undergirds his whole concept of the atonement, but I think Owen’s understanding of Christ’s bearing sins is mistaken.

Owen organizes his thoughts on Christ’s bearing sins as follows:

1. The elect’s sins transfer to Christ, making Him the Sin-Bearer

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

I plan on 1) presenting the passages that teach Christ died for the world, 2) presenting my argument for unlimited atonement, 3) explaining 1 John 2:1-2, 4) going into some detail on the word "world", and 5) addressing John Owen's counter definition.

The Text

The New Testament has 10 passages which teach Christ died for the world. 1 John 2:1-2 is one of them.

1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

What else would all mean? Just kidding. While Arminians are aware that all can be used in a variety of ways which ends up not meaning each and every person, the basic meaning of all is the same in each of its various uses. All can be used in a hyperbolic sense. This is an exaggeration where a person says all but when pressed would clarify meaning something less than all. Another more common use for all which ends up meaning less than “each and every” is an implied qualifier. Someone says all, but they mean all within the context.

John MacArthur, speaking to hundreds of pastors at the 2008 Together for the Gospel (T4G) conference, in his message entitled, "The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing," said, "The contemporary idea today is that there's some residual good left in the sinner. As this progression came from Pelagianism to semi-Pelagianism, and then came down to some contemporary Arminianism, maybe got defined a little more carefully by Wesley, who was a sort of, um . . ., messed-up Calvinist . . . So that the sinner, unaided by the Holy Spirit, must make the first move. That's essentially Arminian theology. The sinner, unaided, must make the first move." (referenced link here).

If we accept human testimony, then God's testimony should be greater, since God's testimony is what testifies to His Son. Those believing in the Son of God have this testimony through Him, but those who do not believe God make Him out to be a liar, for they didn't believe what He has testified to concerning His Son.

This is the Martin Glynn translation.

Let us consider what John is saying here. We are not merely dealing with the opinions of men, but the very words of God. Talking about the testimony of God is more than just some lofty idea of the "inner sense of things" or a "higher testimony". It is an assumption that God is speaking! That God has said something!

A couple of verses early is addresses how God speaks: with His Spirit. So we have the Spirit of God speaking to us, and He speaks to us concerning the Son: Jesus Christ.

In Martin Glynn’s critique of the Articles of the Remonstrants, he provides a brief and helpful historical introduction and then dissects each of the five articles. Glynn notes the two surprises in the pile: article 3 is an unqualified expression of Total Depravity and in article 5 the Remonstrants are undecided on the issue of apostasy and simply say they need to research it more in Scripture. (link)

This article is a brief critique of Jonathan Edwards' views on the will and freedom. I won't be presenting the alternative view, LFW, nor will I attempt to demonstrate the logical outcomes of Edwards' view (i.e. God is the author of sin, God's offer is insincere…). Instead I will just be looking at the internal consistency of Edwards' view. I really think that the more people understand Edwards, the less they will agree with him.

Brief Outline of Edwards' view of Freedom

Brief Outline of Edwards' Arguments in Part II of Freedom of the Will
Edwards attacks LFW in two broad categories: causation and divine foreknowledge. Under causation, Edwards argues that LFW either leads to an infinite regression of causes or is an action without a cause. Edwards then argues that actions without causes are absurd because: 1) they would violate the common sense idea that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause, 2) then we wouldn’t be able to reason from cause to effect, 3) all proof of God’s existence is taken away, and 4) actions produced by a causeless cause would be both random and irrational, and therefore not a basis of moral accountability.

Infinite Regression of Causes or Causeless

In part 3, scections III.I, III.II, and III.III, Edwards argues against the link between LFW and responsibility by appealing to divine impeccability as well as judicial hardening. He argues if God cannot sin, and a hardened man cannot do good, neither has freewill. But God is still worthy of praise and the hardened sinner is still to blame. So praise and blame do not require freewill.

In part 2 section 12, Edwards attempts three demonstrations of the incompatibility of LFW and God’s foreknowledge: 1) based on the connection between foreknowledge and the event, 2) based on the impossibility of knowing things without evidence and 3) based on knowing a contingent event with certainty.

The Connection between Foreknowledge and the Event
Edwards' Argument:
P1: Things in the past are now necessary
P2: In the past, God infallibly foreknew our future choices
C1: therefore, God's foreknowledge of our future choices is now necessary
P3: if something necessary is infallibly connected with something else, that something else is also necessary
P4: God's necessary foreknowledge is infallibly connected with our future choices
C2: therefore, our future choices are necessary

My Response

James Leonard provided a nice summary of Roger Olson’s book: Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Olson’s book is quickly becoming an Arminian classic. One of Leonard’ key points is “Arminians are not driven to their position because they want to cling to free will, as if it were absolutely precious and the one non-negotiable of the debate. The real issue for Arminians is the character of God. Arminians are driven to their position because they see that Calvinism leads to making God the author and the effecting power of sin, and denying God's goodness.” (link)

Outline of Edwards’ Arguments in Part III.IV
Commands inconsistent with LFW

Outline of Edwards’ arguments in part III.V

Background - LFW and responsibility

Under LFW, we are the causal source of our choices (i.e. nothing causally predetermines our choices); we are responsible for our choices. There’s nowhere else to go to. We can’t back track to something else - we are responsible. Under CFW, since our actions are causally predetermined, we can trace back the cause of our actions to something outside of us. Thus, we keep searching for the source of our actions to find out what’s ultimately responsible. When Calvinists say God is the ultimate source, we say they make God ultimately responsible for sin. Even if God establishes a system in which only secondary causes get punished and the primary cause does not (as Calvinists suppose), that doesn’t change the fact that God is ultimately responsible for sin. The issue isn’t one of God’s power or sovereignty, it’s a matter of His goodness and holiness.