Arminian Today

A Jesus-Centered Arminian Blog

Archive for the ‘Arminianism Defended’ Category

John 1:12-13

John 1:12-13 reads:

12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

This text has often been used by both Arminians and Calvinists as a proof text for our positions.  The Arminian sees the receiving in verse 12 whereas the Calvinists sees the being born of God in verse 13.  Both are correct of course.  As an Arminian, I believe that both verses fit together in God’s perfect plan for salvation.  The honor of being adopted as a child of God comes not by the flesh.  This is a key point of true Christianity.  Christians are not Christians because we belong to Christian parents or come from a Christian home.  We are not Christians because we belong to the Christian religion or to a Christian church.  We are not Christians because we make moral decisions to follow Jesus Christ and His teachings.  We may not even be a Christian simply because we have been baptized as a Christian.  Salvation, the glorious work of regeneration by the Spirit of God, happens by the work of God’s grace.  The new birth is the greatest miracle in our lives.

Matthew Henry writes about verse 12:

The true Christian’s description and property; and that is, that he receives Christ, and believes on his name; the latter explains the former. Note, First, To be a Christian indeed is to believe on Christ’s name; it is to assent to the gospel discovery, and consent to the gospel proposal, concerning him. His name is the Word of God; the King of kings, the Lord our righteousness; Jesus a Saviour. Now to believe on his name is to acknowledge that he is what these great names bespeak him to be, and to acquiesce in it, that he may be so to us. Secondly, Believing in Christ’s name is receiving him as a gift from God. We must receive his doctrine as true and good; receive his law as just and holy; receive his offers as kind and advantageous; and we must receive the image of his grace, and impressions of his love, as the governing principle of our affections and actions.

The true Christian is the one who receives Christ, who trusts in Christ alone to save them by His grace from their sins.  This is not about works.  This salvation is not based on what I do to obtain that salvation.  This salvation is wrought by God’s grace through the preaching of His gospel through His Word (1 Peter 1:23).  The disciple of Jesus humbly accepts the Word which is able to make us wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3:15) and is able to save us (James 1:21).

In verse 13 the Evangelist writes that this salvation comes to us by God.  Many Calvinists see in verse 13 the working of God’s sovereignty in salvation.  They see this verse as denying free will as John adds that this salvation from verse 12 comes “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”  

What is John the Beloved teaching us in verse 13?  Is he teaching us that free will is not involved in salvation?  Is he teaching that regeneration is the divine act of God alone and that God must first regenerate a person in order for them to believe and become a child of God?  Many presuppose this to be the teaching.

I see verse 13 as teaching that this salvation, this regeneration is not based on:

  1.  Race (not of blood)
  2. Flesh (not of the will of flesh)
  3. Another Disposed to do so on our behalf (nor of the will of man)
  4. God alone!  (but of God)

Let make briefly deal with all four.  First, John says that our race (in this case the Jews from verse 11) could not save us.  The Jews believed that their race made them children of God by virtue of Abraham (John 8:31-47).  Paul dealt with the same issue in Romans 9.  The Jews claimed to be the elect of God by virtue of their blood.  John is saying that salvation and being adopted as a child of God has nothing to do with blood.  Praise God for this truth!

Secondly, corrupt flesh cannot save itself.  Because of our sins, we cannot save ourselves.  The soul that sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:4).  The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).  When we sin and rebel against God in our flesh, our flesh cannot save us.  We cannot will our flesh to salvation.  We cannot will our flesh to do what is just and right.  Our righteous deeds in our flesh are but filthy garments before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6).  Corrupt flesh only wants to please itself and never the Lord (Romans 3:10-18).  We need the aid of the Spirit of God to be saved.  We need the Holy Spirit to convict us and to show us our sins (John 16:8).  We need the Spirit to open our eyes to the truth of the gospel.  The Holy Spirit does all this when the gospel is preached though He does not make us believe.  This act of belief is ours that we do by His aid (John 1:12).

Thirdly, one cannot will another to salvation.  I desire that my children be saved but I cannot earn them salvation nor can I will them to salvation.  I pray for their salvation and I pray for their repentance but I cannot make them believe nor can I will them to heaven.  This is an act of God.  The saying is true that God has no grandchildren.  God only has children (v. 12).  Thus while Yahweh is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He was the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.  Salvation comes for each person who is saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9) and this salvation is not because a parent or another willed it so but because God willed that whosoever comes to Him through Christ Jesus will be saved (John 3:14-17).  Thus Jews could not will Gentiles nor forbid them.  Salvation comes through Christ alone and He grants salvation to whosoever comes to Him (Romans 10:9-13).  All can come and be saved but only those who do repent are saved (1 Timothy 4:10).

Lastly, the miracle of regeneration comes through God.  God saves sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).  Jesus came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10).  The cross testifies to God’s willingness to save sinners (Romans 3:23-25).  Romans 5:8 tells that God demonstrates His own love toward us.  God doesn’t just say that He loves us but He has proven His love through the cross.  This salvation is the work of God.  God sent His Son to redeem fallen humanity (Galatians 4:4-7).  Being born again is not the work then of our bloodline nor of our corrupt flesh seeking to earn salvation by our works nor is it willed to us by another disciple but our salvation is through personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who loved us and died for us (Galatians 1:4).  Regeneration is the divine grace of God at work in us who believe.

Arminian Honesty About Acts 13:48

If I had to say one passage of Scripture that is difficult for me as an Arminian to reply to it would be Acts 13:48.  The text reads:

ESV: And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

NIV: When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

NASB: When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

KJV: And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Adam Clarke offers this on verse 48:

This text has been most pitifully misunderstood. Many suppose that it simply means that those in that assembly who were fore-ordained; or predestinated by God’s decree, to eternal life, believed under the influence of that decree. Now, we should be careful to examine what a word means, before we attempt to fix its meaning. Whatever tetagmenoi may mean, which is the word we translate ordained, it is neither protetagmenoi nor proorismenoi which the apostle uses, but simply tetagmenoi, which includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination of any kind. And if it even did, it would be rather hazardous to say that all those who believed at this time were such as actually persevered unto the end, and were saved unto eternal life. But, leaving all these precarious matters, what does the word tetagmenov mean? The verb tattw or tassw signifies to place, set, order, appoint, dispose; hence it has been considered here as implying the disposition or readiness of mind of several persons in the congregation, such as the religious proselytes mentioned ver. 43, who possessed the reverse of the disposition of those Jews who spake against those things, contradicting and blaspheming, ver. 45. Though the word in this place has been variously translated, yet, of all the meanings ever put on it, none agrees worse with its nature and known signification than that which represents it as intending those who were predestinated to eternal life: this is no meaning of the term, and should never be applied to it. Let us, without prejudice, consider the scope of the place: the Jews contradicted and blasphemed; the religious proselytes heard attentively, and received the word of life: the one party were utterly indisposed, through their own stubbornness, to receive the Gospel; the others, destitute of prejudice and prepossession, were glad to hear that, in the order of God, the Gentiles were included in the covenant of salvation through Christ Jesus; they, therefore, in this good state and order of mind, believed. Those who seek for the plain meaning of the word will find it here: those who wish to make out a sense, not from the Greek word, its use among the best Greek writers, and the obvious sense of the evangelist, but from their own creed, may continue to puzzle themselves and others; kindle their own fire, compass themselves with sparks, and walk in the light of their own fire, and of the sparks which they have kindled; and, in consequence, lie down in sorrow, having bidden adieu to the true meaning of a passage so very simple, taken in its connection, that one must wonder how it ever came to be misunderstood and misapplied.

F.F. Bruce wrote about verses 48-49:

Distasteful as this announcement was to the synagogue leaders, it was joyful news to the Gentiles who heard it, and many of them believed the gospel – all, in fact, who had been enrolled for eternal life in the records of heaven (for this appears to be the sense of the words here used).  And not only in the city itself, but throughout the surrounding countryside as well, those who believed the good news carried it to others.

In a footnote on Acts 13:48, Bruce wrote:

There is no good reason for weakening the predestinarian note here, as H. Alford does by rendering “as many as were disposed to eternal life.”

And Bruce goes on to show that the Greek participle used here in the sense of “inscribe” or “enroll” is used in other places both in the Old and New Testament as well as in other Greek and rabbinical writings.

In a commentary on Acts I have here before me written from a classical Pentecostal view (Robert Tourville), the writer comments about verse 48:

By way of contrast Paul had said (v. 46) that the Jews had “judged themselves unworthy of eternal life.”  This helps to understand what is meant by “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”  The word “appointed” (tetagmenoi) is a perfect tense participle of the passive voice, but it is also the middle voice form since there is no middle form as distinguished from the passive form.  In light of the context the middle form is the verb tosso, found in the New Testament eight times, of which four occur in Acts.  It is translated appointed, set, ordained, addicted, and devoted.  In the Septuagint it is used numerous times with varied meanings as, to order, appoint, assign, and arrange.  The same voice is used in Acts 28:23, where tosso is used to mean they “had arranged” or “had appointed” or “had set” a day in behalf of themselves.  This brings out the middle voice precisely as in this verse (48).  The same middle sense is found in Matthew 28:16 for this verb.  According to Liddell and Scott the word tosso is a military term meaning “to  draw up in order to battle,” to form array, marshal, to place in a certain order or relative position, to agree upon and settle.

From the above we see the word is used as an analogy.  The command has gone forth to believe on Jesus as Savior.  The Jews refused to believe but the Gentiles rejoice and glorify the word of the Lord by following in the rank with the other soldiers of the Cross.  Thus, they “arrange” themselves, order themselves, line up with eyes right in accord with the preaching of the gospel.  This fits the middle and passive meaning of the verb and harmonizes with the context.

The view above has been my own and remains.  That said, Acts 13:48 is a tough verse.  I am not shy in admitting that.  In my humble opinion, Acts 13:48 is the toughest verse I know to explain from an Arminian viewpoint.  In my estimation, the Calvinist view of Acts 13:48 is easier to hold to.

However, I will say that while Acts 13:48 is hard to explain, I don’t think we should interpret the Bible based just on Acts 13:48.  I know that Calvinists say that we should not interpret the entire Bible based on John 3:16.  I would agree.  We must allow the weight of Scripture determine our view.  Too often I find that Calvinists interpret the Bible based on TULIP instead of looking at the context of Scripture.  For example, I know many Calvinists hold to limited atonement because of TULIP and so they explain away many unlimited texts such as John 3:16 or Romans 11:32 or 1 Timothy 2:4 because it doesn’t fit into the TULIP system.  They base limited atonement on logic (well Jesus died only for the sheep, for the church and because of unconditional election, He certainly must have died only for the elect) instead of Scripture.

Likewise, just because I don’t understand fully Acts 13:48, this doesn’t mean that I take Acts 13:48 and then apply it to the conditional texts of election.  As I have written before, the mystery in Calvinism is how God can be good and gracious while He ordains whatsoever comes to pass including sin.  The mystery in Arminianism is how God works through free creatures to accomplish His divine will.  This mystery in Arminianism does not make God the author of sin and thus I am comfortable with this mystery.

Acts 13:48 has been a verse many Calvinists have looked to and used it to interpret even the whosoever verses.  It is a verse you will always see as a proof text for unconditional election.

As an Arminian, I don’t have an easy answer for Acts 13:48.  Again, I point to Tourville above as a common argument used by Arminians to answer Acts 13:48 but one in which Bruce above also denied.  While I am comfortable admitting that I don’t have an easy answer to Acts 13:48, I am okay with that.  It doesn’t mean that I must repent of my Arminianism and become a five pointer.  I simply acknowledge that I don’t have all the answers nor is Arminianism a perfect system.  We have unanswered questions.

My question is whether Calvinists would do the same?  Are they willing to admit that they don’t have a perfect system?  I suppose many would not.  Sadly, many Calvinists (though not all thank the Lord) hold that their system is the gospel.  I don’t.  I don’t believe either Arminianism nor Calvinism is the gospel.  I believe both are systems by which we seek to make sense of our salvation while acknowledging that God alone saves us by His grace (Jonah 2:9; Revelation 1:5-6).  Jesus Christ and not our systems is who saves us (Hebrews 7:25).  I am okay with mystery in my system.  My system flows from the teachings of Arminius as he best understood Scripture but Arminius was just a man who loved Christ and wanted to glorify Him.  It was created by a fallen man just as Calvinism flows from a fallen man.  Both systems flow from fallen men who sought to exalt the Lord Jesus by their teachings.  They were both imperfect men who needed Christ for their salvation.

So here I sit with Acts 13:48.  I am okay in saying that this verse is tough.  I am okay with listening to Calvinists explain the text as it fits into their system.  I am also okay with Arminians seeking to explain  why this verse is not a divine determinism passage.  As an Arminian, I admit my bias here but admit that I don’t know.  Indeed, God is God and He is bigger than I will ever understand nor can I grasp Him (Romans 11:33-36).  I am okay with and will continue to worship Him no matter what mysteries I cannot explain.

Grace For All Book Review (Chapter 5) Part One

In this post, I will be looking at chapter 5 of the book Grace For All edited by Clark Pinnock and John Wagner.  You may find the first post of these reviews here and the previous review post here.

This chapter was written by Dr. Jack Cottrell.  I have always appreciated Dr. Cottrell.  His book on baptism is a must read as well as his commentary on Romans (one of the best Arminian commentaries on Romans in my estimation along with Dr. Vic Reasoner’s).  His book on the sovereignty of God is the best I have ever read on the subject from an Arminian view.

In this chapter Dr. Cottrell dives into the issue of conditional election.  If you are a Calvinist reading Grace For All, this will be the chapter that really gets you focused on the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism.  I know that many Calvinists love the doctrine of unconditional election and view it as the heart of the gospel.  They believe that the doctrine protects not just the sovereignty  of God but also destroys the pride of men by teaching that God alone saves for His own glory and purposes.  God, within the Calvinist system, chooses whom He will save and whom He will damn based on His own choice and nothing in mankind (in other words, God doesn’t choose those who choose Him or foresee their faith but instead He chooses based on His own sovereign choice for His own glory).  Calvinists teach that God is just in choosing His elect from among the lump of sinful humanity because He could justly send us all to hell but instead He saves some for His glory and purposes that are known only to Himself (Romans 9:22-23).

Cottrell differs with such a view but he does believe the Bible teaches election.  This is important since some Arminians have tried to argue against Calvinism by saying that the Bible doesn’t even teach election.  Of course election is taught but the question becomes what does the Bible teach about election?  Does the Bible teach the Calvinist view of unconditional election to salvation or does the Bible teach something else?  Does the Bible teach that God elects the plan but not the man?  Does the Bible teach that God elects classes or does He elect individuals and how does He elect?

First, let us establish the biblical truth of election.  Cottrell shows us that the Bible teaches several elections.  We must not assume that since the Bible teaches election that it is always unto salvation or unto service.  In some cases it is both and in some cases it is just to service.  Cottrell points out that God has elected and He has elected:

  • Jesus (Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 12:18; Luke 9:35; Acts 2:23; 4:28; 1 Peter 1:20; 2:4, 6).
  • Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2; 1 Chronicles 16:13; Acts 13:17; Romans 9:4-5) which led to Him choosing men to build up the line of Israel such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Nehemiah 9:7; Romans 9:7, 13), Moses (Psalm 106:23) and David (Psalm 78:70) to carry out His purpose for Israel.  He even used Gentiles such as Pharaoh (Romans 9:17) or Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1).
  • The Church (1 Peter 2:9; 2 John 1, 13).  Just as God used individuals in His building of Israel, so He used the Apostles whom Jesus chose to build His Church (Luke 6:13; John 6:70; 15:16) along with Paul the Apostle (Galatians 1:15-16) for His purposes.  Both Israel and the Church were corporate elections with certain individuals chosen for special roles in connection with each.

Up to this point, the Calvinist probably would not take exception with what Cottrell has written.  It is his next discussion, election of individuals unto salvation that begins to show the key differences between the Arminian view and the Calvinist view.

Cottrell first shows that while a person could be chosen by God to service in Israel, this did not mean that the person was saved.  Pharaoh is a case in point.  Yet this is not the case with God’s election in the Church.  To be in the Church and chosen by God to serve the Church, one had to be saved.  God chose Paul the Apostle to serve the Church but He also called Him to service through His salvation.  In Romans 11:7 Paul shows us that one could still be among Israel and not be in the Church.  Merely to identify with the Jews was not enough to be saved.  One had to repent to be in the Church (Luke 13:5; Acts 2:38; Romans 10:9-10).

Cottrell shows the Calvinist understanding of God’s election of people to His Church.  This election is unconditional and based on God’s divine choosing that is known only to Himself.  God has reasons why He chooses one person over the other but He has not made that known to men.  Calvinists often appeal to mystery when it comes to unconditional election and Deuteronomy 29:29.  God does not chose people based on any merit of their own nor is it based on foreseen faith or anything else mankind does.  God simply elects whom He elects and saves whom He saves by His own sovereign choice.  This choice is based on love but not because God sees something in the elect but because God, by nature, is loving and good.  Again, God could will to send all of us to hell and that would be just (Romans 5:12) but instead He chooses to save people out of sinful humanity for His glory.

Cottrell contrasts this view (unconditional election of individuals unto salvation) with a view held largely by many Arminians of class or corporate election.  This was the view of men such as Dr. H. Orton Wiley who held to corporate election.  Robert Shank holds to this view in his book Elect in the Son.  Dr. Cottrell points out the flaws of such a view by saying that the Bible speaks of people being chosen to salvation and not merely a plan.  For example, Cottrell points to Romans 8:29-30 as speaking of persons and not a plan.  2 Thessalonians 2:13 is speaking of people and not a plan.  Ephesians 1:4-5, 11 speaks of people and not a plan.  Romans 16:13 says that Rufus has been elected.  1 Peter 1:1-2 speaks of elected Christians.  Revelation 17:8 speaks of people who have been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.  These are all persons and not merely a plan.

The key to understanding election, according to Cottrell, is that election is conditional and particular.  Those who meet the conditions are saved and thus become part of the elect of God.  This salvation is not unconditional (as Calvinists teach) but is conditional and particular.  God has indeed chosen the Lord Jesus to save lost humanity and Cottrell believes (as all Arminians do) that His atonement was unlimited but is applied only to those who meet the conditions of salvation.  God is sovereign and just to make conditions part of His saving.  Does this mean then that mankind saves themselves?  Of course not!  The humble sinner who repents is not saving themselves but is looking to Christ alone to save them by His grace.  Was the lost sinner in Acts 16:30 trying to earn his salvation when he asked what he must do to be saved?  Paul didn’t reply, “Nothing.  Salvation is unconditionally based on God’s sovereignty and choice.”  No.  He replied that he had to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved (Acts 16:31).  Once the sinner met the condition, he was baptized (Acts 16:33-34) just as Jesus taught (Matthew 28:19-20) and Peter preached (Acts 2:37-38).

In the next post on this chapter, we will dive into Dr. Cottrell’s understanding of how election can be individual while maintaining that it is conditional.  Cottrell rejects corporate election in favor of God’s divine foreknowledge (which is a strong Arminian view).  Others disagree of course such as many Southern Baptists who hold to corporate election.

Under the Wrath of God

The Scriptures teach that God is impartial in His judgments (Exodus 32:33; Deuteronomy 10:17; Romans 2:9; 2 Corinthians 10:6; Colossians 3:25; 2 Peter 1:17; 1 John 3:15; Revelation 21:8; 22:15).  God is opposed to the wicked (Isaiah 52:15; Hosea 13:2; 2 Peter 2:14).  God is just in His punishment of sin.  The person sins because they use their free will to rebel against God and against His will so that the sinner is convicted by God’s law of their sins (Romans 7:7).  The law of God shows them they are sinners and have rejected the law of God by living in rebellious sin.  Thus God does not make people sin but rather He allows people to choose to sin by misusing their wills against God and His law.

The act of the cross is an act of mercy where God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Corinthians 5:18-21).  A true loving relationship exists where the disciple of Jesus humbles himself and repents of his sins and turns to Christ alone for forgiveness and reconciliation to God.  This is not a force relationship but one in which God, who first loved us despite our sinning (1 John 4:10), and we in turn freely love Him (Ephesians 1:13).  The beauty of salvation is that God has provided atonement for those who repent of their sins (1 John 2:1-2).  God truly wants to have a relationship with sinful humans (Romans 3:23-24; 1 Timothy 2:3-4).

The Calvinist understanding of the atonement is that the wrath of God is satisfied by the cross.  I would agree.  But Calvinists teach that the atonement was meant to save only the elect.  They believe this brings true glory to the work of Christ.  After all, they reason, the Arminian understanding of the atonement saves no one but only makes men savable.  In Calvinism, they assert, the atonement is not a failure but actually saves when Christ died to save the elect of God on the cross.

Of course, Calvinist evangelists often preach the atonement much as an Arminian would.  How often have I heard Calvinist preachers calling for sinners to repent, to embrace the Lord Jesus, to turn from their sins, to place their faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ.  I have no problem with this whatsoever.  I preach the same thing.  Some Calvinists will even plea with sinners saying that Christ died for them or that God loves them and has shown His love though the cross.  They will preach that men are under the just wrath of God for their sins.  They will preach that all sinners are in danger of the eternal judgment of God.  I agree with this all!

Yet I ask this question: when are the elect under the wrath of God?  If Christ truly died for the elect then the wrath of God cannot be against the elect since the elect were justified when Christ died on the cross.  Some hyper-Calvinists teach this.  They teach the doctrine of eternal justification.  They are consistent in their view though I completely disagree.  Their logic is that since God knew the elect before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), in the eternal decree of God, the elect were already justified in Christ who is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20).  This view holds that God chose the elect and then He ordained the fall.

The logic of eternal justification makes sense if you hold to the divine determinism of Calvinism.

Let us go back to the issue of God’s wrath.  Are the elect ever under the wrath of God?  Most Calvinists that I know would argue that the sinners they are preaching to and pleading with to come to Christ are indeed under the wrath of God.  Yet if election is true, the Calvinist is preaching the judgement of God to those who are not under His wrath.  After all, the atonement did not fail right?  The atonement accomplished redemption for the elect.  Jesus laid down His life for His sheep (John 10:14).  The Calvinist then pleading with sinners to repent as the means to salvation is wrong.  The sinner is not under the wrath of God.  The sinner is already part of the elect even before time (or at least when Christ died to save the elect) in the mind of God and so the Lord was not angry with the wicked since they are part of His elect that He saved in His Son.  This is logical.  This is not biblical.

The Bible teaches that sin brings the wrath of God.  Again, the Lord is not partial in His judgments.  The soul that sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:4).  All who sin are under the wrath of God because of His absolute holiness and righteousness.  Scripture is clear that anyone who sins, rebels, or fails to live up to God’s perfect standard is under His condemnation (John 3:19; Romans 1:18; 2:6-11; Hebrews 10:26-31; 1 John 3:8, 15, 20; 2 John 1:9).  God is opposed to the wicked (Psalm 5:5; 7:11).

One need only consider the preaching of the gospel in the book of Acts to see whether the Apostles preached whether people were under the wrath of God.  In each sermon the Apostles preached against the sin of the people.  For example, Acts 3.  Here Peter the Apostle preaches that the Jews killed the holy and righteous one (Acts 3:14) and he called their acts “wickedness” (Acts 3:26).  He called them all to repent (Acts 3:19) and said that all who refuse to listen to the prophet will be destroyed (Acts 3:23) who is Jesus (Hebrews 3:1).  Notice that he was not partial in his judgment of the people.  They had all sinned (Romans 3:23) and all were under the wrath of God.  All needed salvation.  The call was for all to repent.

Again, I ask, if the Calvinist view of the atonement were true, the elect would not be under God’s wrath nor would they be guilty of wickedness since the sins of the elect are placed on Christ.

The answer, of course, is that Calvinism teaches that the atonement is only effectual for the elect and thus while the elect are wicked sinners before Christ saves them, the atonement is only applied to the elect when the elect believe the gospel.  This is based on logic and not Scripture.

Scripture is clear when the atonement is applied to the wicked sinner and that is when the believer repents and believes the gospel.  Before this, the sinner is under the wrath of God but after the sinner repents, the wrath of God is turned aside through the propitiation of Christ.  The atonement is available for all but only affective for those who repent and place their faith in the work of Christ.  The cross saves no one apart from faith (Romans 3:22-27).  Without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).  Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is what saves us (Romans 5:1).  Notice in Romans 5:1 that we are not justified unto faith (as in Calvinism) but through faith.  Plus our faith is in Jesus and not a theological construct about Jesus.  We are not saved by faith in faith or by faith in the faith but faith in Jesus (Acts 4:12).  So many think that their system saves when no system saves.  Faith in Jesus and His saving work is what saves us (1 Timothy 1:15).

The Calvinist evangelist is correct to call sinners to repent and turn from their sins.  He is correct to preach that Jesus will save all who come to God through Him.  He is correct to preach that the blood of Jesus will wash away all our sins (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:14).  The Arminian would do the same.  The key difference lies in our theology.  The Arminian is preaching out of their theology while the Calvinist is preaching counter to their theology.

Tony Miano’s Apology and My Response

Tony Miano has issued an apology regarding his statements that I wrote about recently in a post here at the blog.  I appreciate Tony’s candor and his honesty.  While I still maintain that he is wrong in his Calvinism and I hold that it is he who is in error here and not us Arminians, I will allow him to be.  I do offer a short response to here from some of the things that he wrote on his blog.

Tony’s Errors on Arminianism and Works Salvation.

First, while Tony does apologize, he still maintains that Arminians hold to a false gospel.  He writes:

The following clarifications should not be seen in any shape or form as a retraction of my position. Again, I am firm in my belief that consistently-held Arminianism is a false gospel.

And he states:

My concern–my heartfelt, loving, compassionate, fearful concern–is for those men and women who fight for Arminianism. Yes. I am concerned for their souls. I believe consistently-held Arminianism is closer to Mormonism (2 Nephi 25:23) and Roman Catholicism (Prevenient Grace, for example) than it is to biblical Christianity. So, of course, my concern for the ardent Arminian is as great as it is for the Mormon and for the Roman Catholic.

For those unfamiliar with the quote from the Book of Mormon, it states that we are saved by grace after all we can do.  Tony believes that this is what Arminians hold to despite never quoting from any Arminian theologians ever.  I have followed Tony for many years now and I have never seen him quote an Arminian, speak of Arminian theologians that he is reading, never quoted from Arminius or Wesley, and I have never seen him interact even once with any Arminian theologians.  The only Arminian I have ever seen him speak of is Dr. Michael Brown and he wrote that Brown needs salvation and that he was praying for Brown to repent and believe the true gospel (Calvinism).  Had Tony read any of Arminius he would see that Arminius is a theologian of grace and he stood against the Roman Catholic Church in both his public ministry and writings.

For example, Arminius wrote this about the grace of God and try to discern from this if he is closer to biblical truth or the errors above that Tony states we align with:

In reference to Divine Grace, I believe, 1. It is a gratuitous affection by which God is kindly affected towards a miserable sinner, and according to which he, in the first place, gives his Son, “that whosoever believers in him might have eternal life,” and, afterwards, he justifies him in Christ Jesus and for his sake, and adopts him into the right of sons, unto salvation. 2. It is an infusion (both into the human understanding and into the will and affections,) of all those gifts of the Holy Spirit which appertain to the regeneration and renewing of man — such as faith, hope, charity, &c.; for, without these gracious gifts, man is not sufficient to think, will, or do any thing that is good. 3. It is that perpetual assistance and continued aid of the Holy Spirit, according to which He acts upon and excites to good the man who has been already renewed, by infusing into him salutary cogitations, and by inspiring him with good desires, that he may thus actually will whatever is good; and according to which God may then will and work together with man, that man may perform whatever he wills.

In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good, and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, nor do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace. 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.

John Wesley preached this about the grace of God:

So little do they understand that great foundation of the whole Christian building, “By grace are ye saved:” Ye are saved from your sins, from the guilt and power thereof, ye are restored to the favour and image of God, not for any works, merits, or deservings of yours, but by the free grace, the mere mercy of God, through the merits of his well-beloved Son: Ye are thus saved, not by any power, wisdom, or strength, which is in you, or in any other creature; but merely through the grace or power of the Holy Ghost, which worketh all in all.

Is that works salvation as Tony implies?

Tony Still Insists Calvinism is the Gospel.

Many other Calvinists have made his error before him including Charles Spurgeon and his infamous sermon on Calvinism.  Tony, at first, seems to imply in his apology that Calvinism is not the gospel only to turn around and write:

Calvinism (Doctrines of Grace) is not the gospel, but only in this sense. Calvinism is a systematized, biblical representation of the gospel. On the other hand: Arminianism is a systematized, unbiblical representation of the gospel. It is a theological construct that is antithetical to the Doctrines of Grace. Hence, If I believe the Doctrines of Grace rightly represent the gospel, and I believe Arminianism does not, then consistency demands I believe Arminianism is a representation of a false gospel.

In his excellent book, Killing CalvinismGreg Dutcher writes:

The danger is that, while we may begin with Reformed theology as the framework by which we more coherently understand and appreciate our faith, over time it can become the substance of our faith.  At that point, daily living is more about mastering Reformed doctrine that being mastered by Jesus and his total claim over every area of our life.

Dutcher goes on to write how his Reformed theology is his windshield by which he looks out at God and the world but it is not the only windshield.  There are plenty of non-Calvinists (including us dreaded Arminians in Tony’s view) who read the Bible, pray, worship, share our faith, love our families, homeschool our children, etc. but not from a Calvinistic point of view.

Back when Tony was trying to bring some clarity to his “debate” with Mark Cahill over Calvinism, he wrote this:

The theological positions known as Calvinism and Arminianism are “mutually exclusive” in that the two systems oppose each other in debatable issues but not in the essentials. The essentials would include the Trinity, the deity of Christ, Christ’s physical resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, etc. The debatable issues would include pre-trib rapture vs. post-trib rapture, worshipping on Saturday or Sunday, etc.

So in 2010, Miano felt that the debate was over non-essentials but now he holds that Calvinism is the gospel.  What changed?  I suppose he could say that he was wrong in 2010 to write that toward Mark Cahill but remember, he was writing to teach us that Cahill was wrong to say that Calvinists worship a false god.

Miano further wrote in 2010:

Throughout my conversation with Mark, I asserted that I do not believe Calvinists and Arminians worship different gods or believe different gospels. I assured him that so long as we agree that we are saved by the grace of God alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone (the Jesus of the Scriptures) that we are brothers in Christ. I told Mark I would welcome the opportunity to evangelize the lost with him, and he was welcome atop my box to open-air preach anytime. Sadly, by the end of our phone conversation, Mark would not affirm me as his brother in Christ. I repeatedly asked Mark if I was his brother in Christ. He refused to answer.

Now Tony would say that Mark is not his brother and neither are serious Arminians such as myself, John Wesley, Arminius, Adam Clarke, Richard Watson, Francis Asbury, Samuel Chadwick, Leonard Ravenhill, Vic Reasoner, Thomas Oden, or Michael Brown.  Somewhere Calvinism became the issue when in 2010, it was not.

By the way, Ray Comfort, whom Tony Miano adores and I as well, does not make Arminianism and Calvinism an issue with his ministry.  Why does Ray get a pass?  Ray, from my readings of him and listening to him, does not hold to limited atonement which Tony says if you hold to unlimited atonement you are in error.  So why does Ray get a pass?  Ray pleads with the lost to come to Christ and he sounds very Arminian in his preaching on the atonement as well as his call to repent.  Yet Tony gives Ray a pass?

Tony’s View of Arminians and Arminianism.

Tony builds a straw man here when he writes:

I’ve yet to meet an Arminian who believes asking God to save people is unbiblical. Yet the person who consistently holds to the Arminian doctrine of Resistible Grace should never pray for God to save someone. To pray for God to save someone, to pray for God to in any way infringe upon a person’s will so that He can assert His own, is to ask God to make His grace irresistible to the person who is the subject of the prayer.

Certainly Arminians pray, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” And most Arminians will insist as I do that God is sovereign. Yet the Arminian doctrine of Resistible Grace runs contrary to a prayer for the Lord’s will to be done and contrary to any assertion that God is truly sovereign.

Most Christians who ascribe to Arminianism will assert their confidence that they will one-day spend eternity with Jesus, in heaven. Yet, at the same time, they will assert they can lose their salvation. See the inconsistency? How can one have any hope, let alone confidence, of his salvation if he believes that salvation can be lost by his own doing? More about this toward the end of the article.

These are but a few, simple examples of Arminians who simply aren’t Arminians.

Again, I make a distinction between the confused Arminian described above and the rabid Arminian. While the rabid Arminian is certainly confused, the confused Arminian is not necessarily rabid.

Had Tony even read Arminius or Arminian theologians, he would know the answers to his own straw men.  I could write about how consistent Calvinism destroys evangelism or why should consistent Calvinists pray or even live holy lives but this would be nothing but a straw man since I know the answers to these by reading Calvinists books and listening to my Calvinist brothers and sisters.

Tony goes on:

I believe the Doctrines of Grace are the only accurate systematized representation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I believe consistently-held Arminianism creates unbiblical positions regarding the character of God, the character of man, the atonement of Jesus Christ, and the means and manner of salvation (this is not an exhaustive list).

I believe Arminianism (a theological construct that is the antithesis of the Doctrines of Grace) is diametrically opposed to and a false representation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I would only, in passing, point out that Tony’s view on Reformed theology is not universally held.  Roger Olson, in his wondeful book that I wish Tony would read, Against Calvinismwrites how Reformed theology is not nailed down just by TULIP.  He points out that there are many who call themselves Calvinists who would not agree at all with the “young, restless, Reformed” movement of today.  I point out that men such as Russell Moore (formerly of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) and Tommy Nelson (Calvinist pastor in Texas) both reject limited atonement.  Are they wrong?  Tony would say yes!  They are in error and need to repent.

I will also note that you’ll notice Tony offers nothing to show how we Arminians are wrong about our view of the character of God, of man, of the atonement, and the means and manner of salvation.  He simply states that we are wrong and that is that.  No interaction with any Arminian works or theologians.  No quotes from Arminius.  Nothing from Wesley.

I do agree, however, that we Arminians are opposed to Calvinism.  I have never acted otherwise.  That said, I have never held that Calvinist are lost, that they are believing a false gospel (because neither system is the gospel but a way of looking at the gospel), and I would gladly worship, defend, and preach the gospel with my Calvinist friends.  Again, as Tony held in 2010, I believe these are non-essential issues that Christians can disagree over.

Tony’s Closing Remarks (More Straw Men)

“It’s not true! I believe there is goodness in me!” That is pride.

“God didn’t elect me! God simply knew I would make the right decision and choose Christ!” That is pride.

“God is not a cosmic puppeteer, a cosmic rapist! He’s a gentleman! He wouldn’t force me to do anything against my will! Jesus died for my sins, but I had to choose Him! I had to accept Him!” That is pride.

“I must persevere to the end in order to be saved! I can lose my salvation, and I’m determined not to lose it!” That is pride.

Arminianism is a prideful, theological construct. God is opposed to the proud (James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5).

There are no proud people in heaven. The reason? God humbled Himself. He humbled Himself by taking on human flesh and allowing Himself to be crucified for crimes he did not commit (Romans 3:21-26; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 12:2).

Yet God gives grace to the humble (James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5). God will extend His saving grace to His Elect. Christians will likely be surprised one day when they see who is and who is not in heaven. I’m hopeful the redeemed will include many who call themselves “Arminians.”

Tony believes that the very heart of the Arminian above (which is nothing but a straw man) is pride.  Not one of the statements he writes I have ever seen in any Arminian writings.  Not one.  I have read Arminius and he never writes on the pride of man in “earning” his salvation.  Wesley never preached that we can obtain our salvation by our works.  None of what Tony wrote is true of any Arminian I have ever read or known.  I have known many prideful people (and I have been one of them) but my pride was not in me earning my salvation but in thinking too highly of myself now that Christ has saved me (Philippians 2:3-4).  So many Calvinist attacks on Arminianism do nothing but produce false straw men that are not true and the above are no different.

Arminius wrote:

But justification is attributed to faith, not because it is that very righteousness which can be opposed to the rigid and severe judgment of God, though it is pleasing to God; but because, through the judgment of mercy triumphing over justice, it obtains absolution from sins, and is graciously imputed for righteousness. (Acts xiii, 39.) The cause of this is, not only God who is both just and merciful, but also Christ by his obedience, offering, and intercession according to God through his good pleasure and command. But it may be thus defined, “it is a justification by which a man, who is a sinner, yet a believer, being placed before the throne of grace which is erected in Christ Jesus the Propitiation, is accounted and pronounced by God, the just and merciful Judge, righteous and worthy of the reward of righteousness, not in himself but in Christ, of grace, according to the gospel, to the praise of the righteousness and grace of God, and to the salvation of the justified person himself.” (Rom. iii, 24-26; 3, 4, 5, 10, 11.)

Where is the pride of man in Arminius above?

One final note here before I leave this.  Tony attacks Arminians for holding to the possibility of apostasy but he himself would hold that perseverance of the saints is necessary for final salvation lest the person prove “they were never saved to begin with” (1 John 2:19).  So Tony would teach that we Arminians are wrong for warning people of apostasy but he himself would say that a person who turns away was never saved to begin with.  Both need warnings don’t they?  Whether you believe in apostasy or not, the sinning person needs to repent (1 John 3:4-10).  Again, his straw man is not good.

Conclusion

Will there be Arminians in hell?  Yes!  Will there be Calvinists in hell?  Yes!  We are not saved by our systems.  You can hold to Arminianism or Calvinism and still be lost.  Salvation is Jesus.  Salvation is not a system or a church or a doctrine.  Salvation is found in a PERSON!  I am man-centered in my theology: the Man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).  I believe Jesus is my hope, my salvation.  My salvation is not found in Arminius (who is dead) or Wesley (who is dead) or in Roger Olson (who will die just as I will).  My salvation is found in Jesus Christ.  He is my passion.  I would gladly stand on the streets of my city and preach the Lordship of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:5 NASB).  I would gladly preach that we are justified before God only through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (John 6:29; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7).  Our salvation, from beginning to end, must be focused only on Jesus and nothing more lest we be preaching another gospel (Galatians 1:6-9).

Written by The Seeking Disciple

10/16/2015 at 5:38 PM

Old Calvinist Arguments

Almost weekly the same posts from Calvinist bloggers and apologists come out attacking Arminianism for the same things that we have answered them before.  They keep pounding the same arguments because they are either convinced that they are true (even if we deny them and Arminius even addressed them) or they just want to beat up on Arminians (which is sometimes the case).  I will not spend time answering the arguments but I will point you to the Society of Evangelical Arminians (SEA) which answers most if not all of the Calvinist attacks on biblical Arminianism.

1.  Arminianism is Man-Centered Theology

How many times have I heard this one?  I remember responding to a Calvinist over the issue of justification by faith in which I argued that Arminians hold to justification by faith and not by works (Romans 4:5; Titus 3:5).  He responded that Arminians are “works righteousness.”  When I asked why he believed this about Arminianism, he responded that Arminians believe that we and not God is the one who saves us.  When I pointed out that Arminius never held to this view nor has any Arminian that I know of, he still kept saying that we believe that we “help” God through our faith.  I asked him how are we saved?  He said by faith but he insisted that faith is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8 wrongly used by the way) but when I asked him if he believed or did God make him believe, he said God made him wiling to freely believe.  But I asked again, “So are you saved by faith or not?”  He said yes but God gave him the gift of faith to believe thus his salvation was all of God.  When I responded that we Arminians believe that faith is the gracious gift of God as salvation is all a work of God and that He saves us by His grace, the Calvinist simply said that I still hold to works-salvation because of my Arminianism.

In reality, I am man-centered in my theology: the Man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:1-6) whom I believe shed His blood to save all who would come to Him in repentance and faith (John 6:37).

2.  Arminianism Denies the Sovereignty of God.

In reality, we Arminians exalt the sovereignty of God because we believe that our God is so sovereign and He is in control to the point that He can allow for mankind to have the gift of free will.  The God of Calvinism, in my estimation, is afraid.  He fears losing control so He has to control everything down even to determining all things and rendering them certain including sin.  The God of the Bible is certainly the creator of all things (Hebrews 1:3) and He certainly is in control of all things (Psalm 115:3) but He allows people to make free decisions.  How God gets His will done while allowing free will is a mystery in Arminianism and one I can live with.  The mystery in Calvinism is tougher.  Their mystery is this: how can God not be accused of sinning when He plans and determines all things and renders all things certain even sin?  The Calvinist has no answer but appeals to mystery (Deuteronomy 29:29).  I would not want to hold to a theology that makes God this monster who determines all things including sin and renders them certain for one reason: His own glory.

A.W. Tozer wrote:

Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.

3.  Arminianism Denies the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

In other words, Arminians deny that Jesus saved anyone when He died on the cross.  This of course is not true.  Roger Olson, in his great book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities wrote an entire chapter aimed at this subject.  The atonement, for the Arminian is precious.  Jesus shed His blood for our salvation!  The Arminian doctrine of unlimited atonement, in my estimation, is the strongest point of Arminianism.  The atonement is glorious and big in Arminianism because Jesus didn’t die for just a few people’s sins but He died for all men that whosoever can come and be saved.  This is a wonderful truth that led the early Methodists to world evangelism (along with their postmillennial hopes).

The Calvinist says that when Jesus died on the cross, He died only for the elect (John 10:11).  They teach that Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2) but He died only for the elect out of the world.  At the Society of Evangelical Arminians, one brother wrote a piece on Jesus dying only for Paul based on the Calvinist logic.  You can find that here.

The elect are very small.  It seems that throughout the Church Age, the Calvinist view of God has God saving only a few while damning millions all for His glory.  I know that I am not God but it would be more for His glory to save as many as possible (and even more than the damned) if I were determining all things that come to pass.  Of course, the reason that sinners reject God is not because of predestination in the Calvinist sense but rather because they reject the cross and condemn themselves in their sins.

4.  Arminianism Appeals to Immature Christians.

The argument is that people are born again and often become Arminians only to later have the Lord open their eyes to the “doctrines of grace” and they become true Christians which are Calvinists.  Calvinism, according to Calvinists, is the highest one can ascribe to theologically that truly exalts the Lord God.  While some Calvinists will acknowledge that we Arminians and other non-Calvinists are saved (albeit barely in some views), the Calvinist is the one who is truly reached the highest intellectual level of Christianity.  So men such as John Wesley, Adam Clarke, Richard Watson, Francis Asbury, William Pope, Thomas Oden, Jack Cottrell, these are all lesser men of God than say Jonathan Edwards, Spurgeon, or James White.

Now I do believe Calvinism is a step up from most of American evangelicalism.  To go from listening to Joel Osteen to John MacArthur is a good thing.  All of us who have truly been saved know what we came out of (1 Timothy 1:15).  I was a lost sinner before Christ saved me by His grace.  I was nothing and then He made me something (2 Corinthians 5:17).  Now as a young Christian, I was ignorant of theology.  I knew I was saved but that was it.  As I grew, I was blessed to attend an Arminian church and was discipled by an Arminian pastor.  He pointed me to John Wesley and eventually Wesley pointed me to Arminius.  I begin to grow in my understanding of theology.  This is true not just for me but other Arminians and Calvinists as well.  After I had been saved for about 10 years, I begin to read the works of Calvin but I never have been a Calvinist.

I believe that Arminianism is a step up from Calvinism.  If you will, there is saved and then a person steps up to being a Calvinist and then the next step is to being an Arminian.  That is my view and one that is very biased indeed.  I believe Arminianism has a healthier view of God and His sovereignty than Calvinists do and I believe that our passion for prayer, for evangelism. for worship is deeper than Calvinists despite their protests otherwise.

5.  Arminianism is All About Free Will.

There is no doubt that compatibilism and libertarian free will are involved in our debate with Calvinists.  Calvinists believe that everything that happens happens because God decrees it and renders it certain.  Therefore, when Joe Blow sins against God by murdering his mother-in-law, Joe does so because God willed it so and rendered it certain by not giving Joe the grace to resist the sin.  Calvinists would insist that Joe committed the sin freely by his own free choice (based upon his nature according to Jonathan Edwards) and Joe is responsible for his sin.  But by responsible the Calvinists means that Joe is punishable for his sin not that Joe could choose to do otherwise.  There is no free will in Calvinism.  For an Arminian analysis of the issues, read this.  For now, let me post what Calvinists believe about free will from Monergism.com:

We should be clear that NEITHER compatibilism nor hard determinism affirms that any man has a free will. Those who believe man has a free will are not compatibilists, but should, rather, be called “inconsistent”. Our choices are our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures, nor seperately from God’s meticulous providence. Furthermore, compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise, that is, a choice without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we want or desire most according to our disposition and inclinations. The former view (libertarianism) is known as contrary choice, the latter free agency. (the fallen will is never free from the bondage of our corrupt nature, and not free, in any sense, from God’s eternal decree.) The reason I emphasize this is that compatibilists are often misrepresented by hard determinists at this point. They are somehow confused with inconsistent Calvinists. When compatibilists use such phrases as “compatibilistic freedom”, they are, more often than not, using it to mean ‘voluntary’ choice, but are not referring to freedom FROM God’s decree or absolute sovereignty (an impossible supposition).

I have heard Calvinists insist that they we have free will but only the will to sin.  The ability to freely choose with either choice A or B is not found in Calvinism.

Now is this the issue within Arminianism toward Calvinism?  I don’t think so.  Our view on free will is not the heart of our theology.  It is the nature of God.  We believe God desires to have a true relationship with people and so He does not force this relationship.  Our God calls sinners to Himself through the gospel and He freely allows them to respond to His gospel but He does not force people to believe and be saved (despite what Sproul believes about John 6:44 and “drag” people to salvation).  Free will only flows from our view of God.  We believe God is loving and good and He truly wants to save all sinners.  God does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:32).  God’s call to salvation in Arminianism is genuine.

Written by The Seeking Disciple

10/14/2015 at 11:39 AM

%d bloggers like this: