Are All Arminians Unsaved?
by Mitch Cervinka
I recently came across a website which makes such claims as
1. All
Arminians are unsaved,
2. Anyone
who claims otherwise is unsaved (even if he himself fully believes in
Calvinistic doctrine), and
3. Any
Calvinist who claims to have remained an Arminian for some time after he was
regenerated is unsaved.
Moreover, in the brief "Confession" posted on this
website, claims such as these constitute two of its six points.
There are certain obvious problems with a position such as this:
1. Its
unreserved pronouncements regarding the unsaved condition of anyone who
disagrees with its unusual views makes it very cult-like.
2. By
defining itself in terms of the error it is opposed to, this position shows
itself to be, not a Bible-based view, grounded upon positive Biblical teaching,
but rather a mere reaction to the Arminianism it finds so distasteful. In
contrast, the important Reformed Confessions consist primarily of positive
statements of Biblical doctrine, rather than laundry lists of the errors they
oppose.
3. By
making saving faith to depend upon one's assessment of the salvation of
Arminians, it displaces Christ as the focus of our faith. In answer to the
question "What must I do to be
saved?" the answer (at least in part) would be: "Believe that all Arminians are unsaved."
But the issue we want to address is this assertion that all
Arminians are unsaved. How do they arrive at this conclusion, and is their
argument valid?
The Argument Analyzed.
The argument goes like this:
1. A
person's salvation is conditioned solely
on the sacrifice and imputed righteousness of Christ.
2. This
statement (#1, above) is
"The Gospel" that we must believe in order to be saved.
3. Every
Arminian denies this statement (i.e. #1 above), because he believes that
salvation is conditioned upon faith.
4. Thus,
every Arminian is unsaved, because he denies "The Gospel".
What do we say to this line of reasoning? Is it correct? If
it is flawed, where is the flaw?
I fully confess the truth of statement #1 above. We are saved purely
and simply because Jesus Christ at Calvary acted as our substitute, taking upon
Himself the guilt of our sins, and bearing the punishment which we deserved
because of our guilt. God has no more wrath to pour out upon those for whom
Christ died because Christ bore the full penalty for our sins and fully
and forever propitiated (i.e. satisfied) God's justice on our
behalf.
Unregenerate men are so corrupted by sin that they have absolutely no desire
to trust the one true, living and impeccably holy God for their salvation, and
so no man can or will believe unless God gives him the faith to believe. Faith
is not something which we supply in order to receive salvation. Rather,
faith is a fruit and evidence of the Spirit's work of regeneration. Faith is
one of the precious graces which Christ purchased for us when He died for our
sins.
However, it is false to say that statement #1 above is what we must
believe in order to be saved. Saving faith is not so much about assenting to
certain doctrines as it is trusting Christ to save us from our sin and
guilt by means of His shed blood and imputed righteousness. True salvation is
evidenced by one's sense of personal guilt and sorrow for his own
sins, a conviction that Christ and Him alone is able (by virtue
of His redemptive death for sinners) to provide the justification and forgiveness
we so desperately need, and confidence in His promise to fully save
those who, in their guilt and despair, call upon Him for salvation.
Saving faith is, first and foremost, trusting the person, the
resurrected, ascended, living God-man, Christ Jesus, to save us from our sins.
It is not mere conviction about the truth or falsity of various theological
statements. Saving faith is not mere academic knowledge about Christ and
His cross, but a personal relationship with a personal Christ... a
relationship of continual trust in Him and His cross, of loving
submission to Him as the Lord of all and Head of His Church, and of
absolute delight in all that He is and does.
This, of course, does not mean that objective knowledge of certain
Gospel-related doctrines is unnecessary, nor does it mean that we can deny
certain plainly-revealed Gospel truths. For example, the person who denies that
he is a sinner is lost. The person who denies that Jesus is God does not know
the true Jesus and is therefore lost. The person who supposes that salvation is
obtained wholly or partly by human merit is lost. The person who denies that
Christ died as the sacrificial Substitute for sinners to save them from their
sins, is lost.
Scripture is the Final Judge of
Doctrinal Matters.
But, where do we draw the line between what must be believed as
essential Gospel truths, and those truths which are not required for
saving faith? The true test of what we must believe to be saved is not
clever arguments about the sufficiency of the cross, but the plain declaration
of God's holy Word. Scripture is the final arbiter of what is and
what is not the Gospel message we must believe. We must search the
Scriptures to see what truths are set forth in the evangelistic encounters
of Scripture, and what truths are declared, in the doctrinal expositions
of Scripture, to be the necessary object of saving faith.
Scripture often commands men to believe in Christ and in His
redemptive sacrifice and promises salvation to those who do. However,
the gospel presentations recorded in Scripture never explain the role of
faith in salvation... Is faith the evidence that God has already
saved you or is it a prerequisite condition to receiving justification?
The Biblical gospel presentations do not clarify the role of faith adequately
to answer this question...
John 20:31 - but these have been written so that you
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing
you may have life in His name.
Acts 16:30-31 - and
after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be
saved?" They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be
saved, you and your household."
Romans 10:4 - For
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Romans 10:12-13 - For
there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of
all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for "WHOEVER WILL
CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."
The Gospel, as such, is not so concerned with whether we
understand our faith to be God-generated or self-generated, as long as the
faith itself is fastened upon Christ.
Saving faith must center on Christ, to the exclusion of self. A truly
saved person may errantly believe that his faith is self-generated, but genuine
faith will never boast of itself or its own accomplishments...
1 Corinthians
1:29-31 - so that no man may boast
before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us
wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that,
just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."
Galatians 6:14 - But may
it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
Ephesians 2:8-9 - For
by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is
the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Those who are preoccupied with their own act of faith, and
who make such rash claims as "God
cannot save you without your permission" or "God has done His part, now you must do your part" have
dethroned God and turned faith into a redemptive human work. It is quite
possible that such persons have never experienced the grace of God. That form
of Arminianism which asserts that God "cannot"
save us unless we permit Him to do
so, is high treason against our Sovereign God, and those who truly believe this probably do not know
Him as their Lord.
We should not, however, assume that every Arminian would make a statement
like this. I am confident that many Arminians would recoil at such impious
statements. They see their faith as self-generated only because they are poorly
instructed on the relation of faith to regeneration and redemption. Even though
they view their faith as self-generated, they would never be so bold as
to ascribe merit to their faith, or to brag that it was "their contribution"
to salvation.
There are two things we must understand about the nature of faith...
1. We must never assume that a self-generated faith must of necessity
be a "work" of merit. No doubt some treat it this way... especially
when they vehemently contend that their decision to believe was the
reason why they were saved. Again, this comes dangerously close to
boasting of one's own contributions, which indicates that their focus is on
self and not on Christ.
But to have a proper sort of faith, we must feel the burden of our own sin
and corruption, and we must find in Christ alone the justifying righteousness
that is so desperately needed. The woman with the issue of blood who touched
the hem of Christ's garment illustrates this kind of faith quite well...
Luke 8:43-44 - And a woman who had a hemorrhage for twelve
years, and could not be healed by anyone, came up behind Him and touched the
fringe of His cloak, and immediately her hemorrhage stopped.
This woman trusted that Jesus had the ability to heal her of
an infirmity which no one else for twelve years had been able to heal, and she
reached out to our Lord for the healing she so desperately needed. So it is
with saving faith... we need not know precisely how it is that Christ's
substitutionary death for sinners saves those who believe. We simply need to
know that Jesus Christ, by virtue of His redemptive death for us, is fully able
to save us from the incurable guilt and condemnation of our sins, and that He
fully saves all who look to Him alone for salvation.
A person can have this kind of faith without having a proper understanding
of the origin of his faith. A person who is new to the faith may very easily
assume that his faith originated from himself, since he did not perceive
anything obviously supernatural in the way he received his faith... no blinding
light, such as Saul experienced on the way to Damascus... no sensation of
someone "forcing" him to believe in Christ. The beauty of
regeneration is that we simply come alive and begin spiritually
"breathing" with faith, and it all seems so natural that we sometimes
fail to recognize its supernatural origin...
Long my imprisoned
spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature's night.
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I woke-- the dungeon flamed with light!
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
(from "And Can it Be?",
a hymn by Charles Wesley)
2. We must never
confuse contingency with merit. Calvinistic apologists sometimes
assert that, if faith is a condition
of salvation, then it must be meritorious
and this makes it a work of righteousness.
Whether this conclusion is true or not depends upon another consideration...
namely, does the proponent of conditional salvation assert that human faith
supplies something that is lacking in the work of Christ? Or...
does he assert that there is nothing lacking in the work of Christ, but
that God has decreed within Himself not to impute Christ's redemptive
merit to a person until he believes? The former position turns faith
into a work, and thereby proves itself to be every bit as damning as the
Pharisees' doctrine of self-justification. The latter position, on the other
hand, acknowledges the ability of the Cross to save all for whom Christ
died, and leaves the matter of its imputation in the hands of a sovereign God
who has determined to impute the justifying merit of Christ to those who trust
in Christ alone for the forgiveness and righteousness they need.
Scripture never says that saving faith must believe that "salvation
is conditioned solely on whether Christ died for our sins". The
substitutionary death and resurrection of Christ are truths which saving faith
must believe...
1 Corinthians
15:1-3 - Now I make known to you, brethren,
the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which
also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the
word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered
to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our
sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He
was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
However, neither this passage, nor any other passage which
discusses what we must believe to be
saved, describes the work of Christ with such precision as to require us to
believe that the death of Christ automatically
justifies us before God, without regard to our faith. Yes, there are passages
which teach this truth, but they never
set forth this doctrine as something which must
be believed...
Romans 5:9 - Much more then, having now been justified
by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
Galatians 1:15-16 - But
when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me
through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me ...
Philippians 1:29 - For
to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, ... to believe in Him ...
Hebrews 9:15 - For this
reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken
place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the
first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of
the eternal inheritance.
Hebrews 12:2 - fixing
our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy
set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the
right hand of the throne of God.
The fact is that the Gospel
presentations in Scripture make statements about the work of Christ without carefully defining the
relationship of faith to the Cross. Yes, faith is the fruit of the Cross, rather than the
determiner of who will receive the justification purchased by Christ on the
Cross; but men are never commanded to believe this aspect of redemption
as a necessary requisite for salvation.
In What Sense is Calvinism the
Gospel?
Calvinistic authors sometimes refer to Calvinism as the gospel of our
salvation. J. I. Packer, for example, called it the "Old Gospel", and
contrasted it with the "New Gospel" of Arminianism in his "Introductory
Essay" to John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of
Christ." One can also find Spurgeon, Pink, Gill and Whitefield making
statements to the effect that Calvinism is the Gospel.
However, it is abundantly clear that none of these men meant it in the sense
that one must be a Calvinist in order to be saved. We must understand
this important point: There are two ways we use the term
"Gospel". This was addressed in my article Is Calvinism the
Gospel?, but it appears that this is a point which needs to be
emphasized and elaborated more fully.
When we speak of "The Gospel", we can mean either of two things:
1. "The Gospel" as The Doctrines
of Soteriology- Those teachings which describe in detail all that God does to save the sinner.
2. "The Gospel" as The Object of
Saving Faith - Those teachings which every truly regenerate person must and will believe.
It cannot be stated strongly enough that these are two different and distinct uses of the word
"Gospel". The doctrines which constitute the body of Biblical
soteriology are all true, precious, important doctrines. Moreover, when they are properly understood,
they help ensure that we understand the second
meaning (i.e. "The Object of
Saving Faith") correctly, and see it in its proper relation to other
doctrines of life and faith.
However, it is false to say that one is unregenerate if he does not
understand and believe all the various facets of soteriology. It is also false
to assert that one is unregenerate simply because he has some erroneous
ideas about certain aspects of soteriology. We need to draw clear
distinctions concerning what is the essential object of saving faith,
and what merely describes God's great works of salvation.
We also need to leave room for a certain amount of growth and progress
in Christian doctrine and life. To insist that a person is not regenerate
unless his doctrine is perfect is akin to saying that a person is not
regenerate unless he lives a perfectly sinless life. If a regenerate person can
still commit sin, then a regenerate person can still hold erroneous doctrines.
It is somewhat arbitrary to place doctrinal error in a different category from
moral error. Clearly, there are some doctrines which a regenerate person cannot
deny, but it is arbitrary to place Calvinistic doctrine in this category
(except for a few considerations which were discussed in my former article).
Moreover, a person can simply be ignorant of certain Biblical doctrines.
When a person first receives faith, it is unlikely that he has a very broad or
deep exposure to Scripture. Where there are holes in his understanding, there
are likely to be false ideas filling those holes. But if he is elect, then, as
he progresses through the Christian life, our faithful Lord will guide him into
truth, replacing those false ideas with sound doctrine, as he studies and
believes God's Holy Word.
Scriptural Examples.
We can be reasonably certain that the thief on the cross, to whom Jesus said
"Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43), did not
have a comprehensive understanding of Calvinistic doctrine. He may very well
have had some mistaken ideas about various aspects of salvation. Certainly,
from what is written in Scripture, we have no reason to believe that our Lord
expounded the doctrines of grace to this man. Indeed, when we consider the
great pain and exhaustion involved in crucifixion, it is unthinkable that our
Lord could have given him a brief course in Calvinistic soteriology while
nailed to the cross.
Much the same conclusion can be drawn about many of the other evangelistic
encounters in Scripture. When the Philippian jailer was stopped by Paul and
Silas from commiting suicide, he asked them "What must I do to be
saved?" The apostles did not give him a short course in Calvinistic
soteriology. Rather, they made the simple statement: "Believe in the
Lord Jesus, and you will be saved ..." (Acts 16:30-31).
They did not say "Believe that God from eternity past has
unconditionally chosen certain ones unto salvation, that Christ died for the
elect only, and that faith is God's sovereign gift, imparted by the Holy Spirit
when He regenerates the elect individual."
But, what about this statement (i.e the one which Paul and Silas did not
say)? Isn't it true? Isn't it important? Isn't it "The
Gospel"? Yes, it's true. Yes, it's important. Yes, in one sense,
it is "The Gospel"... But not in the sense that it is
something which a regenerate person must understand and believe. It is
"The Gospel" in the first sense listed earlier (i.e.
"The Doctrines of Soteriology"), but not in the second
sense (i.e. "The Object of Saving Faith"). Had it been
"The Gospel" in the second sense, then Paul and Silas
would not have merely said "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you
will be saved...". Instead, they would have given the jailer a lesson
in Calvinistic doctrine.
In fact, never in Scripture are distinctly Calvinistic doctrines held
out as the things we must believe to be saved. We must believe in Jesus
Christ (John 3:16; 20:30; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9; etc.), and we must
believe in His sacrificial death and resurrection...
1 Corinthians
15:1-4 -Now I make known to you,
brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received,
in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast
the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered
to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our
sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was
raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Doctrinal Precision.
Does this mean that we can believe the statement "Christ died for
our sins" however we please? Is the Arminian interpretation (i.e.
that Christ died for all men to make them "savable") just as
valid as the Calvinistic interpretation (i.e. that Christ died for the
elect only, to actually save them from their sins)? Must we not
believe the Gospel the way the apostle intended it?
This is good question, and it is the sort of argument that is used to try to
prove that Arminians are unsaved. The problem with this argument is that it
assumes that a person must come to grips with the question of who is
meant when the apostle says "our sins". Unquestionably, "our"
includes the apostle and the Corinthian saints to whom he wrote.
Unquestionably, it also includes all who were ever saved (or who ever will be).
The only question left is "Does it also include those who will never
believe?" The correct answer to the question, of course, is "No.
Christ redeemed His elect only." But we are not so much concerned
with what is the correct answer to this question as with whether a
person must take a position on this issue in order to be saved. What if
a person answers the question by saying "I honestly don't know whether
Christ died for those who will never believe." Is this absolute proof
that the person is unsaved?
Our critics may argue: "Yes, this proves he is unsaved, because it
means he doesn't understand that we are saved by the blood of Christ alone."
But for this argument to be valid, we must conclude that every regenerate
person will unfailingly consider all the various aspects and implications of
the doctrines he believes. It leaves no room for the person to say "I
never considered that aspect of it." In other words, we must be
careful systematic theologians who have done a complete study of soteriology or
else we are unregenerate. But, is this true? Can it be substantiated
from Scripture?
How often in Scripture do we read of simple, unlearned people trusting in
Christ. The learned men of Jesus' day were the ones who wanted to kill Him. It
was the blind, the lepers, the harlots and the tax-gatherers who exercised true
saving faith. Jesus' own disciples were tax collectors and fishermen. There is
no evidence that these were the kind of people who engaged in precise, thorough
theological debate and dialogue, in an attempt to consider all the
ramifications of the Gospel ...
1 Corinthians
1:26 - For consider your calling,
brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many
mighty, not many noble;
Isn't it possible, therefore, indeed likely, that a new
believer will have many questions, misconceptions, and misunderstandings about
many things? He knows that he is saved by the blood of Christ, but He may never
have considered the implications of what it would mean to say that Christ died
for the non-elect.
Take another example. John 3:16 says that "... whoever believes in
Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Those who have studied
the Biblical doctrine of election will recognize "whoever believes in
Him" as denoting God's elect, since no one can or will believe in
Christ unless God has chosen Him, and sends His Holy Spirit to regenerate Him.
But there is nothing in the context of John 3:16 to explain the doctrines of
unconditional election and irresistible grace. There is only this simple
statement: "... whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have
eternal life."
Must a regenerate person understand all the implications of how a person
comes to have faith in Christ? ... Or, is it enough that he is trusting
in Jesus Christ to save him from his sins? He knows that, as a believer
in Jesus Christ, he fits the description of those who have eternal life,
even if he does not yet understand all the details of how he came to have that
faith.
But surely a person who expresses hatred at the idea of a sovereign
God is unsaved, isn't he? ... Perhaps. But consider this: if the individual has
a distorted understanding of God's sovereignty, supposing that would
make God the author of evil, and would mean that He somehow forces men
to sin, or that He exercises His sovereignty in a tyrannical or unjust manner,
then surely he ought to hate such a "God" as that! We all
ought to hate such a view of God! What we need to remember is that a new
believer will not have a perfect understanding of God (Indeed, will the finite
human mind ever fully grasp the infinitude of God?). At the very least,
he should understand that God is holy and just, and has full authority over all
His creation. But it takes a great deal of careful study and thoughtful
contemplation to come to grips with how God can be both sovereign (foreordaining
from eternity everything, whatsoever comes to pass) and just while holding men
accountable for their sin. We should not assume that a person must be firmly
settled on this matter before we can consider him to be regenerate.
The Essential Object of Saving
Faith and the Message we Preach.
Perhaps it is more enlightening to think of the two uses of the term
"Gospel" in this way...
1. The Gospel as The Message Preached
2. The Gospel as The Essential Object of Saving
Faith
What is the essential object of saving faith? ...
Saving faith is trust in the person of Jesus Christ, in His mercy
toward wretched sinners who feel the weight of their sins and look to Him for
pardon and cleansing, in the efficacy of
His atoning sacrifice to fully pardon them from their sins, in His faithfulness to honor His promise to
save all who call upon Him for salvation, and in the fact of His resurrection from the dead, which proves once and for
all that He is both Lord and Victor over sin and death.
The message of salvation we proclaim must contain the essential object of saving
faith if it is to be a valid presentation of the gospel, but it will typically
contain more. Why? .. Because it is
important to set bounds around the object of faith, and to show what it is not as well as what it is. The message we preach should exalt and describe the essential object of saving faith, and lead men to a
proper understanding and appreciation of it.
The message we preach will often include other things beyond the bare
minimum of what must be believed. In the message preached, we demonstrate that all
men are sinners who fully deserve the wrath of God, and that Jesus Christ
has fully paid for the sins of everyone who trusts in Him. We show men the
inability of the Law to save them. We declare to them that their good works can
in no way contribute to their standing before God, because that would imply
that there is some deficiency in the work of Christ. We warn them against
trusting in anything else for their salvation than Christ and Him crucified,
and offer them the assurance that everyone who looks to Him in genuine faith
and repentance is truly saved.
The doctrines of grace (i.e. Calvinistic soteriology) seek to focus the
hearers' attention on a God who is truly holy and just and who has the sovereign
right to judge them for their sins, as well as being full of mercy, grace and
lovingkindness toward His chosen people. They emphasize the fact of human sin,
teaching us that we are so ruined by sin that we have no love for the one true
and glorious God who reigns over us. They emphasize the fact that salvation
must be by His mercy and kindness, because our sinful, unregenerate
hearts would forever stubbornly refuse to submit to His rightful authority or
trust His goodness. When we see that Christ died exclusively for His elect
people, it helps us to understand more fully that we are saved by His sacrifice
alone, and that there could not possibly be anything else required of us by God
to make us righteous in His sight.
Thus, while the kernel of what we must believe can be present even when
distinctively Calvinistic doctrines are not preached, nevertheless these
precious doctrines serve as a great magnifying glass, helping us to see the
sacrifice of Christ clearly, displaying it in all its brilliance and splendor,
showing us the depth of the sin from which we are saved, the infinite worth and
efficacy of our Lord's suffering, and the great power and purpose of the Triune
God who works mightily and infallibly for our salvation. The doctrines of grace
thus supply great incentives and compelling reasons for us to
despair of ourselves and to trust wholly in Christ.
The Essential "Gospel
Issue"
The essential issue addressed by the Gospel is that man is a sinner, under
the condemnation of God. The Gospel never calls upon the unregenerate to
believe that they are unable to believe. Rather, it calls upon us to recognize
our guilt before God, and to see Christ's sacrificial death as the sole remedy
for our guilt and condemnation.
The Gospel message is about guilt, condemnation and forgiveness.
It is not about "Who chose whom?", or "Where
does faith come from?" Gospel-faith is trust in the personof
Christ, having the confidence that He, by means of His Substitutionary death,
has borne our sin and is fully able to forgive everyone who calls upon
Him for salvation. Gospel-faith recognizes that Christ saves only those who trust
in Him. It does not necessarily recognize the truth that this trust
is God-given.
How do we know this? ... We know it because Scripture says so. When
Scripture describes what a person must believe to be saved, it says we
must believe in Jesus Christ, and in His office as sin-bearer. The
Scriptural exhortations to faith and salvation explain that the Gospel centers
on the issues of guilt and forgiveness. Thus, the person who
correctly understands himself to be a guilty sinner can do no better than to
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and be saved (Acts 16:31),
or to "Call on the name of the Lord" and be saved (Romans
10:13).
Our critics sometimes compare Arminians with cultists, such as Mormons,
Jehovah's Witnesses, or Moslems, as if the doctrinal error of the Arminian is
of the same kind as that of these others. But an essential difference
between what the Arminian believes and confesses, versus what these others
believe and confess, is that the Arminian does see himself as a guilty
sinner before God, and does recognize that no one but Christ is able to
take away that guilt. (Another essential distinction, of course, is that the
Arminian confesses the full deity of Christ, His incarnation, and
the Trinity, whereas the cults often deny Christ by making Him out to be
a mere man, an exalted angel, or one "god" among many).
There is, of course, a relationship between man's guilt and his utter depravity...
both have their origin in Eden, and man's sinful conduct stems from the same
depravity which keeps him from believing the Gospel or trusting in Christ. Even
so, these considerations are not at the center of the Gospel itself. Concerning
sin and depravity, a person needs only to realize that he has broken God's holy
law, that he has done things of which he is ashamed, that his own conscience
condemns him, and that, no matter how hard he tries, he cannot attain to that
standard of righteousness he knows he ought to obey. It is good for him
to also realize that, until God regenerates him, he will never have the desire
to genuinely come to Christ in faith and repentance, but, again, this
truth is never set forth in Scripture as one of the things which we must
believe to be saved.
What Saving Faith is Not.
We need to carefully read the Gospel invitations of Scripture, for, when
they tell us what to believe, we find that they seldom require us to
believe propositions, but instead require us to trust in a person...
namely, the person of Jesus Christ...
John 9:35-37 - ...
He said, "Do you believe in the
Son of Man?" He answered, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe
in Him?" Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is
the one who is talking with you." And he said, "Lord, I
believe." And he worshiped Him.
John 3:16 - ... that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Acts 16:31 - They said,
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your
household."
Acts 19:4 - Paul said,
"John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe
in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
Romans 3:22 - even the
righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who
believe; for there is no distinction;
Galatians 2:16 - nevertheless
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith
in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be
justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by
the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Galatians 3:22 -
But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by
faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
And, when Scripture does
set forth propositions (i.e.
theological statements) for us to believe, they are much more
"minimal" and "basic" than what our critics assert is
required for salvation...
John 20:28-29
- Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed
are they who did not see, and yet believed."
John 20:31 - but these
have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
Romans 10:9 - that if
you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart
that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 - Now
I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also
you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold
fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I
delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Yes, there are
doctrinal propositions which we must
believe for salvation, but where does Scripture
ever say that distinctively Calvinistic propositions are included among them?
This is the ultimate proof that faith in Calvinism is not what saves, but
rather faith in Christ as the God-man who bore the sin of guilty sinners and
promises to save those guilty sinners who trust in Him (not merely in statements about
Him) to save them from their sin and guilt.
We must beware of making doctrinal fidelity the sole test of one's
spiritual condition. A person can hold sound doctrine, and yet be the devil
incarnate in his judgmental attitudes, unmerciful treatment of others,
hypocrisy and unholy life. Sound doctrine is very important, and much to be
desired, but we must never equate saving faith merely with holding sound
doctrine. Yes, we must be sound in the basic, essential
doctrines stated in passages such as those cited above, but there is more
to saving faith than simply holding correct doctrines.
The fruit of the Spirit is characterized by many things...
Galatians 5:22-23
- But the fruit of the Spirit is
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness,
self-control;
True regeneration is evidenced by one's character and
attitudes, and not merely by the doctrines he confesses. A true believer
grieves over his sins and rejoices over the forgiveness purchased for him by
the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
Matthew 5:3-10 - Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs
is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be
comforted. Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed
are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in
heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be
called sons of God. Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of
righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
1 Peter 1:8 - and
though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now,
but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of
glory,
A person who has not received such a heart is unregenerate,
regardless of what doctrines he holds. On the other hand, a person who truly
exhibits the fruit of the Spirit of God will confess those doctrines which are
truly essential to salvation (e.g. his own personal guilt, the deity of Christ,
salvation by Christ's sacrificial death, etc.), even if he is confused on other
matters.
A Spectrum of Arminianism.
Arminians (like most everyone else) come in different varieties. Here are
some varieties I have observed...
1. The
rabid, foam-at-the-mouth Arminian, who hates even the mention of the word
"elect".
2. The
sanguine, indifferent Arminian, who can tolerate any differing view, but will
never critically analyze his own beliefs.
3. The
humble, serious-minded Arminian, who is willing to change his beliefs if they
do not conform to Scripture.
We should seriously question the claims that the first two
are saved. The third variety, however, seems to display the Spirit's work... of
humbling himself before God, and submitting to whatever His Word says. A person
in this third category may eventually come to embrace Calvinism, as his study
of the Scriptures reveals to Him the glory of God's sovereign grace.
Likewise, there are many theological views which fit under the general label
of "Arminian", and some of these are far more honoring of Christ than
others. When an Arminian utters statements to the effect that God is a failure
(because, despite all His best efforts, many nevertheless go to hell), he has
uttered blasphemy against His holy name and it is difficult to believe that
such a person has truly experienced the grace of regeneration. When an Arminian
divides up the ground of our salvation by saying that "God has done His
part, now you must do your part", has he not denied the
sufficiency of Christ?
Yet, I am confident that there are Arminians who are more careful in what
they believe and how they express it. That Arminian is not far from the kingdom
of God, who views faith, not as an ingredient we supply in our
salvation, but rather as seeking from Christ that justifying righteousness
which he so desperately needs and finds totally absent within himself. Even
though he believes that Christ died for the sins of all men, yet he may affirm
that God withholds the saving merits of the sacrifice of Christ from men
until they exhibit true faith in Jesus Christ. If he believes that God
sovereignly imputes the saving merits of Christ to believers only,
and that it is Christ's merit alone that justifies the sinner,
then we cannot accuse him of teaching that the death of Christ is unable
to save those for whom He died, nor of trusting in his own merit.
Sometimes a person's actions do not match his profession. He may say he
believes in free-will, but then he will pray for the salvation of his
unbelieving friends and family members as if their salvation was entirely in
God's hands. What does he truly believe? In Scripture, one's actions
often speak louder than his words...
Matthew 21:28-31
- "But what do you think? A man
had two sons, and he came to the first and said, 'Son, go work today in the
vineyard.' "And he answered, 'I will not'; but afterward he regretted it
and went. "The man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered,
'I will, sir'; but he did not go. "Which of the two did the will of his
father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly
I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom
of God before you.
Thus, it may be that a person is a Calvinist at heart (i.e. praying that God would save his
unbelieving relatives), even though, on an intellectual level, he still has a
lot of Arminian ideas.
The Dangers of Arminianism.
It is one thing to admit that some Arminians are saved. It is quite
another to endorse Arminianism as being a harmless error. The proponents of
Arminianism have often been both zealous and irreverent in their formulation
and preaching of Arminian doctrine; but even the least objectionable forms of
Arminianism represent a weakened view of the corruption of man and a diminished
view of the glory of God and of His salvation of sinners. However, the more
objectionable forms of Arminianism have been downright blasphemous in
their insistence that God cannot save us unless we permit Him to do so,
or that God is a failure because He failed in His efforts to save all
mankind.
It is no wonder, therefore, that some Calvinists have reacted against this
extreme form of Arminianism by concluding that Arminianism per se is so
contradictory and antagonistic to the Gospel that no Arminian could possibly be
saved. Again, we must remember that Arminianism actually embraces a spectrum of
views, or at least, a spectrum of attitudes toward the doctrines of
depravity and redemption.
The greatest danger of Arminianism is that it opens the door to these
extremes, which clearly are so contradictory to the Gospel that it is
difficult to comprehend how a person who dogmatically holds to such irreverent
and blasphemous views could truly be saved. Even in its more benign forms,
Arminianism dilutes and obscures the reality of the atonement and its intent
for particular, specific sinners.
Iain Murray explains this well...
Evangelical
Arminianism preaches a substitutionary atonement and it also clings to a
universal redemption, but because it knows that this universality is one that
does not secure universal salvation it must necessarily weaken the reality
of the substitution, and represent it as a more indefinite and impersonal thing
-- a substitution which does not actually redeem but which makes the
redemption of all men possible. According to Arminianism, the atonement has no
special relation to any individual person and it renders the salvation of no
one certain. For this same reason this teaching has also an inevitable tendency
to underrate the meaning of propitiation and to obscure the fact that
justification comes to sinners solely on account of Christ's work. It is not
faith which makes the atonement effacacious for us, rather the atonement has
secured the justification and righteousness of sinners, and even the faith by
which we apprehend these blessings is a gift of which Christ is the author and
purchaser. So while Arminianism does not deny the nature of the atonement as
vicarious, there is always the danger that it may do so, and this is one reason
why, in more than one period of history, Arminianism has led to a Modernism
which denies substitution and propitiation altogether. Once a blurred and indistinct
view of the atonement is accepted in the Church it is more than likely that the
next generation will come to the ultimate obscurity of a man like F. W.
Robertson of Brighton, of whom it was said, 'Robertson believed that Christ did
something or other, which, somehow or other, had some connection or other with
salvation.
(Iain Murray, The Forgotten
Spurgeon, pp. 75-76. 1998, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh).
Murray's quotation from Thomas Goodwin is also
enlightening...
Thomas Goodwin in
his commentary on Ephesians, chapters 1-2:11, expounding 'the great love
wherewith he loved us,' observes: 'That God in his love pitcheth upon
persons. God doth not pitch upon propositions only; as to say, I will love
him who believeth, and save him, as those of the Arminian opinion hold; no, he
pitcheth upon persons. And Christ died not for propositions only, but for
persons.... He loved us nakedly; he loved us, not ours. It was
not for our faith, nor for anything in us; "not of works", saith the
Apostle; no, nor of faith neither. No, he pitcheth upon naked persons; he loves
you, not yours. Therefore here is the reason that his love never fails, because
it is pitched upon the person, simply as such.... The covenant of grace is a
covenant of persons, and God gives the person of Christ to us, and the person
of the Holy Ghost to us....' Works of Thomas Goodwin, 1861, vol. 2, 151.
(Ibid, footnote at bottom
of page 75)
What about Historical Calvinists?
The website I mentioned at the outset of this article claimed that any Calvinist
who even suggests that some Arminians might be saved has thereby denied the
Gospel and cannot possibly be regenerate. What does this say about some of the
great Calvinists of history?
For example, it says that George Whitefield, one of the greatest
Calvinistic evangelists since the apostle Paul, was unsaved. Why? ... Because
he encouraged and supported John and Charles Wesley, who were quite Arminian,
and regarded them as brothers in Christ to the day of his death. We should
remember, however, that Whitefield did not approve of the Arminianism of
the Wesleys, for he wrote a lengthy protest against John Wesley's attacks
against predestination. Whitefield also refused to submit to the Wesleys'
insistence that he be silent on the issues of Calvinism in his preaching.
Whitefield replied that, if he could not preach the sovereign grace of God, he
could not proclaim the Gospel.
It would mean that Jonathan Edwards, who highly respected Whitefield
as a brother in Christ sinned by not rebuking Whitefield for his endorsement of
the Wesleys. At the very least, this proves that he did not hold the views of
those mentioned at the beginning of this article.
It would also imply that Martin Luther was unsaved, since he
hand-picked Melancthon to be his successor, and Melancthon was the person
primarily responsible for turning the Lutheran church away from Calvinism. I
don't think we can say that Melancthon's defection from the doctrines of grace
occurred after Luther's death, for he worked with Luther to develop the Augsburg
Confession, which has little to say about God's sovereignty in salvation.
Charles Spurgeon is another casualty to this way of thinking. He once
stated...
Far be it from me
even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her
walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. (Quoted by
Iain Murray in The Forgotten Spurgeon,
p. 65.)
Spurgeon also promoted the ministry of the Arminian D. L.
Moody, and allowed him to preach in his pulpit. I believe he was wrong to do
this, and that it served to undermine much of what Spurgeon preached and
taught, but it is ludicrous to say that this proves Spurgeon was unsaved... One
would have far greater reason to presume David to be unsaved because of his
twin sins of adultery and murder, or that Peter was unsaved for denying Christ
three times.
We would have to search far and wide for any statement by a well-known
Calvinist suggesting that all Arminians are unsaved. If the vast majority of
Calvinistic authors and preachers throughout history did not feel it was
important to assert that all Arminians are unsaved, then clearly they did not
believe that all Arminians are unsaved. The fact is that, historically, the
doctrines of grace have been defended and proclaimed almost exclusively by men
who regarded Arminians to be brothers in Christ. If not for men such as these,
the Gospel of God's sovereign grace would be virtually unknown today. The test
of one's faithfulness to Calvinistic teaching is not whether he judges
Arminians to be unsaved, but whether he is diligent to openly and faithfully
proclaim the doctrines of God's sovereign grace. And the test of one's
salvation is not whether he rejects Arminians as unsaved, but whether He trusts
in Christ's sacrificial death and righteousness as the sole ground of his
salvation.
What about John Owen?
The great Puritan theologian, John Owen, is sometimes claimed as a
proponent of the view that all Arminians are unsaved, based upon statements he
made in his treatise A Display of Arminianism ...
... Be pleased but to cast an eye on the following
instances, and you will find them hewing at the very root of Christianity.
Consider seriously their denying of that fundamental article of original sin.
Is this but a small escape in theology ?-why, what need of the gospel, what
need of Christ himself, if our nature be not guilty, depraved, corrupted ? ...
Here, Owen charges Arminians with teaching that our nature
is not "guilty, depraved, corrupted",
and thus accuses them of "hewing at
the very root of Christianity." And yet, Arminians do confess that the human nature is
"guilty, depraved, corrupted".
They deny that it is totally
depraved, to be sure, but they do nevertheless confess that all men are guilty sinners, possessing a corrupt, depraved nature. Anyone who
denies human guilt and corruption is certainly lost, and fully deserves the
charge of "hewing at the very root
of Christianity". But such a denial belongs to full Pelagianism, and not
to the semi-Pelagianism of the
Arminian.
Does this mean that Owen misrepresented his Arminian opponents? Not
at all! In Owen's day, there were a variety of views which paraded under the
general heading of "Arminian"... from the semi-Pelagianism of Arminius'
follwers to outright Pelagianism, and a whole range of intermediate views as
well. This is made clear by his statement only a few sentences later...
... Neither let any object, that all the Arminians do
not openly profess all these errors I have recounted. Let ours, then, show
wherein they differ from their masters. ... With some they appear only to
dislike our doctrine of reprobation; with others, to claim an allowable liberty
of the will: ...
Here, he makes it clear that those he calls "Arminians"
hold a variety of positions, and that not all of them "... openly profess all these errors I have
recounted."
We need to understand something of the historical events which occasioned
his treatise. In Owen's day, there was political pressure being exerted by some
to admit Arminians into the clergy of the Anglican Church. Owen wrote his
treatise to show the danger to the Church of such an action. In his
treatise, he speaks of "civil peace" and of "ecclesiastical
peace", and how it would endanger both to admit Arminian teaching into
the church alongside the truth of God's sovereignty.
... Now, the result of the one of these is civil peace;
of the other, ecclesiastical: betwixt which two there is a great sympathy, a
strict connection, having on each other a mutual dependence. Is there any
disturbance of the state? it is usually attended with schisms and factions in
the church; and the divisions of the church are too often even the subversions
of the commonwealth. ...
Owen had reason to believe that this most recent attack upon
the purity of the Church was occasioned by its Roman Catholic enemies...
... this I have heard, that it was affirmed on
knowledge, in a former parliament, that the introduction of Arminianism amongst
us was the issue of a Spanish consultation. It is a strange story that learned
Zanchius tells us, how, upon the death of the Cardinal of Lorraine there was
found in his study a note of the names of divers German doctors and ministers,
being Lutherans, to whom was paid an annual pension, by the assignment of the
cardinal, that they might take pains to oppose the Calvinists; and so, by
cherishing dissension, reduce the people again to Popery. ...
Owen's treatise was addressed to a committee of the British
parliament, "THE LORDS AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE FOR RELIGION".
His concern was not the immediate harm which comes to the individual who embraces Arminianism, but
rather the ultimate harm which would
come to the Church as Arminian
doctrine spreads and leads to greater and greater errors...
... With some they appear only to dislike our doctrine
of reprobation; with others, to claim an allowable liberty of the will: but
yet, for the most part,--like the serpent, wherever she gets in her head, she
will wriggle in her whole body, sting and all,--give but the least admission,
and the whole poison must be swallowed. ...
If we read Owen carefully, we will see that his purpose was not to prove that all Arminians are
unsaved, but rather, like Spurgeon two centuries later, he asserts that
Arminianism is a false and dangerous system of doctrine which, though it does
not necessarily contradict the Gospel itself, nevertheless diminishes the glory
of the Gospel and compromises its ability to bring the sinner to see the
absolute helplessness of his condition and that his only hope is in the
sovereign Lord he has so greatly offended.
... The Lord, when he means to save sinners, does not
stop to ask them whether they mean to be saved, but like a rushing mighty wind
the divine influence sweeps away every obstacle; the unwilling heart bends
before the potent gale of grace, and sinners that would not yield are made to
yield by God. I know this, if the Lord willed it, there is no man so
desperately wicked here this morning that he would not be made now to seek for
mercy, however infidel he might be; however rooted in his prejudices against
the gospel, Jehovah hath but to will it, and it is done. Into thy dark heart, O
thou who hast never seen the light, would the light stream; if he did but say,
"Let there be light", there would be light. Thou mayest bend thy fist
and lift up thy mouth against Jehovah; but he is thy master yet -- thy master
to destroy thee, if thou goest on in wickedness; but thy master to save thee
now, to change thy heart and turn thy will, as he turneth the rivers of water.
...
(C. H. Spurgeon, A Revival
Sermon, delivered January 26, 1860, at Exeter Hall, Strand. www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0296.htm)
Conclusion.
The essence of the Gospel is not a precise doctrinal formulation of
how the forgiveness purchased by Christ's blood comes to the believing sinner.
Rather it is the convicted sinner's realization that Christ alone, because of
His substitutionary death for sinners, can save Him from his sins and the
condemnation he so richly deserves, joined with a plea to Christ for mercy.
The Holy Spirit does not necessarily weed out every vestige of Arminian
thinking from us the instant He regenerates us. But He does lead us into
the truth as we progress through the Christian life.
We discern the spiritual condition of the Arminian the same way we do of a
Calvinist... Does he exhibit the fruit of the Spirit of God? Does he affirm
essential Gospel truths: His own sinfulness, the holiness and justice of God,
the vicarious nature of Christ's atonement, that Christ alone is the
sinner's righteousness? Does he acknowledge the full inspiration and inerrancy
of God's holy Word? Does he love the Lord and His people? Is he humble and
kind? Does He trust Christ to save him from his sins?
These are the marks of a true Christian, whether he holds to Arminian or
Calvinistic beliefs. Let us be Biblical, not merely philosophical
in our assessment of the salvation of others.