Post by biblethumper on May 15, 2006 12:46:31 GMT -5
NEW ARTICLE EDIT:
Note: This article obviously touches on Extreme Arminianism, or Dan Cornerism; the author, also, is obviously Calvinist.
I do NOT subscribe to everything in this article, yet I post it because it's not rare to take note of this vein of thought, especially in Western Canada, where some congregations have boldly stated that Arminians preach a heretical gospel.
I agree as do all Reformed Brethren; otherwise, we'd be preaching the heresy, wouldn't we?
Some Calvinists believe that Arminian doctrine (extreme, not Wesleyan etc etc) is tantamount to be a PART of the deluding factor in sending people to an eternal hell without God.
In no way is this article condemning ALL Arminians, but only those who are mentioned here as have the three traits listed.... hence, Dan Corner would fall into this area, as well as many RC's and free will baptists and many Charismatics.
I hold to a moderate view of Calvinism, which means I believe you can lose your salvation ONCE (Blasphemy) and never regain it...I deny free will but not free choice.
So, this is not an indictment against Jesse, Evan, and really, MOST here... it's simply a revealing look at extreme Arminianism....and really, I agree fully that this article hits the nail on the button in terms of extreme arminianism's false gospel.
_________________________________
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE: IS ARMINIANISM A FALSE GOSPEL?
The Rev. Brian M. Abshire
Every so often, I receive letters and emails or get into discussions on the phone with various people wanting to know my position on “Arminianism;” specifically whether I believe Arminianism is a “false gospel” (and whether those believe who believe or espouse some form of it are “regenerate”). Often these are not simple enquiries (my position is of course clearly stated in the Westminster Standards) as attempts to engage me in long and fruitless debates on various “big-name” broad evangelical figures and their ministries. Call me a paranoid cynic if you will, but sometimes I suspect that the questioner is simply trying to set me up for some reason.
However, the question in and of itself is an interesting one; since I believe, (to paraphrase Warfield) that the Reformed faith is the purest expression ever developed of Biblical religion, just what IS the status of Arminians? Is their gospel true or false? Since even the most cursory examination of the state of modern evangelical Christianity shows a deplorable lack of understanding and acceptance of the Reformed faith where does this “average” believer stand-spiritually speaking? Are those who have a deficient understanding of the doctrine of salvation all lost heretics that ought to be condemned?
To begin the answer one must first carefully define the terms. Strictly speaking, Arminianism is the doctrine of salvation condemned by the Synod of Dordt in 1619. Jacobus Arminius (the Latin form of Jakob Hermandszoon) had been a pastor and university professor whose attacks on certain aspects of Calvinism caused considerable division and factions within the Dutch church. After his death in 1610, his students issued the Remonstrance outlining his system.
The major points of disagreements with historic Calvinism were (1) the decree of salvation applies to all who believe in Christ and who persevere in obedience and faith, (2) Christ died for all men, not just the Elect, (3) the Holy Spirit must help men to do the things that are truly good (such as having faith in Christ for salvation (4) God’s saving grace can be resisted and refused and (5) it is possible for those who are Christians to fall from grace (cf. R.G. Clouse in The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Douglas editor, pg 70). The Calvinist responded to this theology with the now famous acronym TULIP (1) Total depravity, (2) Unconditional election (3) Limited atonement (4) Irresistible grace and (5) Perseverance of the saints.
These issues were debated at the Council of Dort, with classic Calvinism essentially “winning” the theological battle and Arminianism being declared a “heresy” (a serious distortion of doctrine that goes to the heart of the faith). “Calvinism” has been the historic, orthodox view from the time of Augustine (who refuted Pelagius in the 4th century). Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists all agreed with the Dutch Calvinists and likewise condemned Arminian theology (see Appendix).
Though the issues are complex, essentially the Reformed consensus was that only God can save sinful men; Arminian doctrine taught that God only made salvation a possibility. Thus man cooperated with God in salvation; God did His part in making salvation possible, but man also had to do his part or the salvation was ineffectual. In effect, Arminianism makes good works necessary before salvation, thus denying the heart of the Christian gospel. Reformed theology sees good works as a product AFTER salvation.
Furthermore, the Arminian view, since man cooperates in his salvation, destroys any sense of assurance; how can the Arminian ever be certain of his motives and actions? Does he “really” believe the gospel or is he self-deluded? When he sins, has he sinned “too much” or “too often” and therefore lost his salvation?
I remember a self-conscious Arminian church in a community that posted incredible “conversion” figures for ten years running. But the size of the church never changed! In essence, every year, almost HALF of their congregation would repent of their sins and become “converted” all over again!
Orthodox Christianity therefore rejected the Arminian formulation as heterodox. However, in the late 18th century John Wesley and in the early 19th century Charles Finney both “won” great numbers of American and English “converts” to the Arminian position during the great revivalist periods. Even traditionally Calvinist churches often subtly changed their message, de-emphasizing or even denying certain doctrines that might interfere with their evangelistic efforts. To this day, the most common gospel preached by the average American church at least APPEARS closer to that of Arminius than of Calvin.
So, with so many “Christians” today actively denying traditional, “Calvinist” soteriology (i.e., the “doctrine of salvation”), what is their status before God? First, from the definition given above, clearly, MOST American Christians today are NOT self-consciously “Arminian” in the classic sense just as they are not self-conscious Calvinists. In fact, it could be argued that they are mostly, just confused; affirming and denying aspects of both Calvinism and Arminianism at the same time. For example, the vast majority of evangelicals avidly believe in “eternal security” something utterly opposed by classic Arminian theology. Doctrinal teaching is increasingly rare and superficial in most American churches and most churchmen are simply unconcerned about doctrinal issues. The average Christian is unable to discern the differences between the two systems.
A common response from somewhat theologically adept layman to the question of whether they are Calvinist or Arminian is, “I am a Calminian…” Such people think they are saying something witty and insightful. They refuse to identify with either of the old categories because they believe they have found “truth” by embracing both at the same time. Yet, classic Arminianism and Calvinism are mutually exclusive systems; they contradict each other and cannot be logically reconciled.
Often, when Reformed scholars critique something as “Arminian,” they are not so much saying that a position IS classic Arminianism, so much but that the fundamental presuppositions being expressed must inevitably LEAD to Arminianism if a person were to be consistent with those presuppositions. However, people are not computers and do not always reason logically and consistently from their premises. People have an annoying ability to believe two mutually contradictory things at the same time-so simply because a Christian says he believes something like “free will” does not automatically mean that he is going to be consistent with that proposition and adopt classic Arminian theology.
Secondly, in this line, there is a tendency for some “ratio-centric” Christians to insist on a consistency in doctrine that transcends even Scriptural requirements. The Westminster Confession and Catechisms is one of the best developed expressions of Biblical truth ever systematized by men; but the Bible is NOT a systematic theology text-book. God gave His revelation about Himself through historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, as well as clear didactic passages (such as the Pauline epistles). It takes time, intelligence and rigorous scholarly work to put all of that revelation together consistently. The Old Testament saints had only a dim understanding of who the Messiah would be and how He would accomplish His redemptive task; though everything revealed was in fact about Him. The New Testament itself addresses heresies, false doctrines and deficient understandings of the gospel message that were rampant in the first century church (cf. Hebs 6:1). While the Apostles corrected these misunderstandings, they did not say that the people who held them were NOT Christians simply because they did not properly understand how all the pieces fit together. Clearly people had already become Christians, were baptized and were in the church and then had to be corrected in their theology and practice.
Putting together the entirety of God’s revelation into a comprehensive and logically consistent system took over a thousand years. Clearly, there were Christians before the Westminster Assembly who were among the Elect, who did not always understand how all the wonderful promises, precepts and principles of Scripture fit together coherently. Would we deny them membership in the invisible church just because they lived in a time BEFORE godly and learned men had argued, debated and reasoned together to give us a purer, more consistent expression of the “faith once delivered?”
Thirdly, what is it that saves a man from his sins? This may seem too simple a question but surprisingly, some do not seem to grasp that how we answer THIS question will determine how we address the “Arminians” in our midst. Is a man saved because he understands and professes certain theological propositions about the nature of salvation, or is he saved by the grace of God in Christ? “False dichotomy” some will cry, but seriously, think with me for a moment; how DOES God save a man from His sins?
Well, the word of God is preached, God regenerates a sinful man’s heart, giving him faith to turn from his sins, believing that gospel and then confessing Jesus as Lord. “Ah hah!” the wily critic will respond, “but the key is that it is the WORD of God is preached; and Arminianism is not the word of God but the word of man!”
However, is that necessarily so? In Romans 10:9-10 the Apostle Paul CLEARLY writes, “…that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved…” And then in verse 13 he concludes, “…for whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” Now just how advanced and sophisticated a theological understanding of the gospel must a person possess to be saved? Literally, in these verses there is almost NO complicated theology involved at all; simply acknowledging Jesus as Lord and believing “in the heart” that God raised Him from the dead. There is no requirement here for a person to comprehend the subtle (though important) philosophical and theological nuances of free will, what was going on in the eternal mind of God before creation, the extent of Adam’s transgression, the noetic effect of sin, the extent of the atonement, the effects of the Holy Spirit in calling a man, the perseverance of the saints, etc. Yet how much of all these things does a person have to understand for the gospel to be effectual? Some Reformed people seem to assume that BEFORE a man could be converted, he requires the equivalent of a seminary education!
Granted, there are enormous theological implications to confessing Jesus as Lord and believing God raised Him from the dead, important implications; but at this point we are simply inquiring about how much intellectual content is required by God in order to effect a transition from death to life. And the answer is, “none!” God regenerated John the Baptizer’s heart IN HIS MOTHER’S WOMB! There are children whose hearts are regenerated in infancy. Can we not assume that some people of diminished intellect are saved by God’s grace even though their cognitive processes are seriously impaired?
The reason of course is that God decreed that His Elect would be saved; He does His work inside the unregenerate heart giving a person a new nature and a renewed mind. After “conversion” God then works through His Holy Spirit to transform that person’s entire life and thinking. However, at any one moment of time in that person’s life; how would they themselves understand their experience or how well could they articulate it to others? And if their understanding of God’s actions is less than complete, or even wrong, does it negate that work of God?
Converts to the faith carry with them much intellectual baggage from their previous life that can and often does obscure the reality of their new natures. They do not always understand what has happened to them, or how it has happened to them. In fact, depending upon their own education, native intelligence or ability to articulate complex ideas, they may be significantly limited in how they understand this work of God, let alone in being able to express it meaningfully.
Furthermore, they are handicapped by the theology of those who first shared the gospel with them. The person who preached to them that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, died for sins and was resurrected on the third day might not himself understand properly how all these things fit together into a comprehensive and consistent Biblical worldview. But the “convert” does BELIEVE that Jesus is the resurrected Son of God and does CONFESS Him as Lord; and that is all that the Bible requires for salvation. I see nothing in Scripture that says that merely because he might be confused about the process that somehow, it invalidates the work of God in his heart which gave him both the faith, and the ability to profess Christ in the first place.
Therefore for all these reasons, a person could well have a regenerate heart and possess true saving faith in Christ, YET not be accurately express that in consistent terms. To the contrary, they could well give explanations that are even contrary to Scripture because, simply speaking, they just don’t know any better.
God saves a man through a particular process, but the man so saved may misunderstand that process, misinterpret the events leading up to it or even be confused about what God has done in his heart and life. The reality of regeneration is there, but the understanding of that reality may well be limited. To affirm otherwise is to implicitly adopt some form of Gnosticism; salvation by secret knowledge, rather than the active work of God in Christ.
Saving faith in Christ is surely more than giving intellectual assent to a series of theological propositions. “Conversion” requires a regenerate heart that confesses Jesus as Lord and believes that God raised Him from the dead. Now that “confession” is again no mere intellectual formality; it is the recognition that Jesus Christ is HIS Lord; that his life is subject to King Jesus. But would not all good Calvinists argue that a man cannot do that unless God first regenerates his heart and gave him faith in the first place (1 Jn 4:15)?
“But surely, AFTER salvation, that regenerate heart will seek for truth and that truth MUST be some form of the Reformed faith?” This is of course “true” in that regenerate hearts, having been freed from slavery to sin ought to rejoice in the truth and hungrily seek after it (Jn 17:17). But there are several other considerations; first, God gave His church teachers for a reason; not all can or should teach (Jas 3:1). If Christians do not have “good” teachers, then many will never come to a full realization of the truth. “And how shall they hear without a preacher?” Paul asks in Romans 9:14 in a slightly different but still relevant context. Thus if Christians do not have shepherds who understand the truth and teach the truth, then many of them will never understand it either.
Finally, there are sins of intellect as well as of the flesh. No Reformed person would insist that simply because a man’s heart was regenerated that he would never sin again. Christians sin, because we have not yet been perfected. And the most subtle and most dangerous sins of all are sins of the mind. The entire book of Proverbs was written to teach men wisdom; clearly something we do not have by nature. Wisdom is the life-long acquisition and application of God’s unchanging moral principles built into the very fabric of creation. But men can be self-deceived, uninformed, ignorant and sometimes actually STUPID when it comes to understanding God’s wisdom. Therefore, should we not expect that some Christians whose hearts are truly regenerate, who are less than consistent in ALL areas of life, may have a wrong understanding of the process of salvation?
After all, Reformed Christians often suffer from their own sins of intellect; Paul warned specifically about arrogance coming from a greater understanding of the faith (Rms 8:1). Reformed Christians can be snide, condescending, prideful, contemptuous, and nasty towards others whose understanding does not reach their own exalted level (Rms 14:1ff). Furthermore, there are more than a few Reformed Christians who gossip, slander, backbite, brood over offences, etc., in every Reformed church. While their understanding of the faith may be superior to the average broad evangelical’s, their application is just as deficient. Isn’t it just a little hypocritical to call one person’s salvation into question because he lacks a theoretical construct that consistently deals with the Biblical data, but then turn a blind eye to our own mental and ethical failings? When reading through the New Testament, to which does the Holy Spirit give more space, the intellectual understanding of the faith, or the ethical application of the faith (1 Jn 2:29, 3:4, 6, 9, etc.)?
Granted, true, Biblical religion ought to have both sound doctrine and sound application; the presence of one does not excuse the lack of the other. But our point here is that ALL Christians fall short of the glory of God and perhaps we ought to be a little more concerned about taking logs out of our own eyes, than worrying about the splinters in other people’s eyes.
Arminianism has never saved anyone because it IS a deficient understanding of the gospel; Arminianism only makes salvation a possibility dependant on a man’s good works. Thus, in this sense, Arminianism IS a false gospel for only God can and does save sinners as a sovereign act of His eternal will. Men cannot save themselves; they are spiritually dead (Eph 2:1) and the gospel is foolishness to them (1 Cor 2:14) until He shines His light into their hearts, giving them faith (2 Cor 4:5, Eph 2:9, etc.). But the point of course is that such people may still be saved because they have called upon the name of the Lord for salvation, submitting themselves to His Lordship and believing in the depths of their being that God raised Him from the dead.
Granted, “Invite Jesus into your heart” is not the gospel and no one was ever saved by praying a “prayer” or walking down the aisle after an “invitation.” However, when the fact that Jesus Christ died for sinners is preached, and men are called to turn from their sins, receive His forgiveness and submit themselves to His Lordship, God can choose to regenerate a person’s heart giving him faith to trust in Christ. That person may well then pray the “sinner’s prayer” or “raise his hand” or whatever, but at that point it may well be that he is just making that confession that Jesus is Lord Paul talked about in Romans 10:9-10.
However, ideas do have implications; what we believe really does affect our life, and our ministry. A Christian who never grows in his understanding of the faith cannot help but be deficient in his values, his ethics and his practice of the faith. Our God is the true God (Jn 17:17), and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth (Jn 4:24). Being ignorant of the truth, or suppressing the truth or distorting the truth will have profound effects on the health of the church and the advancement of the Kingdom. There can be no doubt that one of the reasons for the present deplorable state of the church of Jesus Christ in the world today is a direct result of a mangled, confused and inconsistent understanding of the Scriptures. Furthermore, there are undoubtedly many within the broad evangelical community whose distorted understanding of the gospel is the result of unregenerate hearts (tares, if you will) who use doctrinal confusion as a means of entering the Church and keeping her from her high and holy calling.
The Reformed faith was once the almost universal consensus in America during our colonial period. Pietism, Revivalism and Arminianism were a three pronged attack from within the covenant community that undermined and destroyed Reformed orthodoxy. However, out there, in broad evangelical churches, there are those that belong to Christ, despite their theological deficiencies. Sometimes they do not know better, because no one has ever told them anything different. They hunger and thirst for righteousness, a deeper walk and spiritual meat, but have no one to feed them.
Rather than being contemptuous of such people, or insinuate that they are little better than baptized pagans, surely, those of us who have been granted greater insight ought to be trying to reach them? The great task of the Reformed church over the next generation is going to require Calvinists to get on their knees, repent of our own sins, and then in love and gentleness reach out to these brethren to bring them back to the richness of orthodox Christianity (2 Tim 2:23-24). When we reformed folk learn how to demonstrate love and service to our brethren, meeting them where they are, and then leading them to where God wants them to be, perhaps He will grant us a new reformation and true revival of religion.
Note: This article obviously touches on Extreme Arminianism, or Dan Cornerism; the author, also, is obviously Calvinist.
I do NOT subscribe to everything in this article, yet I post it because it's not rare to take note of this vein of thought, especially in Western Canada, where some congregations have boldly stated that Arminians preach a heretical gospel.
I agree as do all Reformed Brethren; otherwise, we'd be preaching the heresy, wouldn't we?
Some Calvinists believe that Arminian doctrine (extreme, not Wesleyan etc etc) is tantamount to be a PART of the deluding factor in sending people to an eternal hell without God.
In no way is this article condemning ALL Arminians, but only those who are mentioned here as have the three traits listed.... hence, Dan Corner would fall into this area, as well as many RC's and free will baptists and many Charismatics.
I hold to a moderate view of Calvinism, which means I believe you can lose your salvation ONCE (Blasphemy) and never regain it...I deny free will but not free choice.
So, this is not an indictment against Jesse, Evan, and really, MOST here... it's simply a revealing look at extreme Arminianism....and really, I agree fully that this article hits the nail on the button in terms of extreme arminianism's false gospel.
_________________________________
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE: IS ARMINIANISM A FALSE GOSPEL?
The Rev. Brian M. Abshire
Every so often, I receive letters and emails or get into discussions on the phone with various people wanting to know my position on “Arminianism;” specifically whether I believe Arminianism is a “false gospel” (and whether those believe who believe or espouse some form of it are “regenerate”). Often these are not simple enquiries (my position is of course clearly stated in the Westminster Standards) as attempts to engage me in long and fruitless debates on various “big-name” broad evangelical figures and their ministries. Call me a paranoid cynic if you will, but sometimes I suspect that the questioner is simply trying to set me up for some reason.
However, the question in and of itself is an interesting one; since I believe, (to paraphrase Warfield) that the Reformed faith is the purest expression ever developed of Biblical religion, just what IS the status of Arminians? Is their gospel true or false? Since even the most cursory examination of the state of modern evangelical Christianity shows a deplorable lack of understanding and acceptance of the Reformed faith where does this “average” believer stand-spiritually speaking? Are those who have a deficient understanding of the doctrine of salvation all lost heretics that ought to be condemned?
To begin the answer one must first carefully define the terms. Strictly speaking, Arminianism is the doctrine of salvation condemned by the Synod of Dordt in 1619. Jacobus Arminius (the Latin form of Jakob Hermandszoon) had been a pastor and university professor whose attacks on certain aspects of Calvinism caused considerable division and factions within the Dutch church. After his death in 1610, his students issued the Remonstrance outlining his system.
The major points of disagreements with historic Calvinism were (1) the decree of salvation applies to all who believe in Christ and who persevere in obedience and faith, (2) Christ died for all men, not just the Elect, (3) the Holy Spirit must help men to do the things that are truly good (such as having faith in Christ for salvation (4) God’s saving grace can be resisted and refused and (5) it is possible for those who are Christians to fall from grace (cf. R.G. Clouse in The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Douglas editor, pg 70). The Calvinist responded to this theology with the now famous acronym TULIP (1) Total depravity, (2) Unconditional election (3) Limited atonement (4) Irresistible grace and (5) Perseverance of the saints.
These issues were debated at the Council of Dort, with classic Calvinism essentially “winning” the theological battle and Arminianism being declared a “heresy” (a serious distortion of doctrine that goes to the heart of the faith). “Calvinism” has been the historic, orthodox view from the time of Augustine (who refuted Pelagius in the 4th century). Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists all agreed with the Dutch Calvinists and likewise condemned Arminian theology (see Appendix).
Though the issues are complex, essentially the Reformed consensus was that only God can save sinful men; Arminian doctrine taught that God only made salvation a possibility. Thus man cooperated with God in salvation; God did His part in making salvation possible, but man also had to do his part or the salvation was ineffectual. In effect, Arminianism makes good works necessary before salvation, thus denying the heart of the Christian gospel. Reformed theology sees good works as a product AFTER salvation.
Furthermore, the Arminian view, since man cooperates in his salvation, destroys any sense of assurance; how can the Arminian ever be certain of his motives and actions? Does he “really” believe the gospel or is he self-deluded? When he sins, has he sinned “too much” or “too often” and therefore lost his salvation?
I remember a self-conscious Arminian church in a community that posted incredible “conversion” figures for ten years running. But the size of the church never changed! In essence, every year, almost HALF of their congregation would repent of their sins and become “converted” all over again!
Orthodox Christianity therefore rejected the Arminian formulation as heterodox. However, in the late 18th century John Wesley and in the early 19th century Charles Finney both “won” great numbers of American and English “converts” to the Arminian position during the great revivalist periods. Even traditionally Calvinist churches often subtly changed their message, de-emphasizing or even denying certain doctrines that might interfere with their evangelistic efforts. To this day, the most common gospel preached by the average American church at least APPEARS closer to that of Arminius than of Calvin.
So, with so many “Christians” today actively denying traditional, “Calvinist” soteriology (i.e., the “doctrine of salvation”), what is their status before God? First, from the definition given above, clearly, MOST American Christians today are NOT self-consciously “Arminian” in the classic sense just as they are not self-conscious Calvinists. In fact, it could be argued that they are mostly, just confused; affirming and denying aspects of both Calvinism and Arminianism at the same time. For example, the vast majority of evangelicals avidly believe in “eternal security” something utterly opposed by classic Arminian theology. Doctrinal teaching is increasingly rare and superficial in most American churches and most churchmen are simply unconcerned about doctrinal issues. The average Christian is unable to discern the differences between the two systems.
A common response from somewhat theologically adept layman to the question of whether they are Calvinist or Arminian is, “I am a Calminian…” Such people think they are saying something witty and insightful. They refuse to identify with either of the old categories because they believe they have found “truth” by embracing both at the same time. Yet, classic Arminianism and Calvinism are mutually exclusive systems; they contradict each other and cannot be logically reconciled.
Often, when Reformed scholars critique something as “Arminian,” they are not so much saying that a position IS classic Arminianism, so much but that the fundamental presuppositions being expressed must inevitably LEAD to Arminianism if a person were to be consistent with those presuppositions. However, people are not computers and do not always reason logically and consistently from their premises. People have an annoying ability to believe two mutually contradictory things at the same time-so simply because a Christian says he believes something like “free will” does not automatically mean that he is going to be consistent with that proposition and adopt classic Arminian theology.
Secondly, in this line, there is a tendency for some “ratio-centric” Christians to insist on a consistency in doctrine that transcends even Scriptural requirements. The Westminster Confession and Catechisms is one of the best developed expressions of Biblical truth ever systematized by men; but the Bible is NOT a systematic theology text-book. God gave His revelation about Himself through historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, as well as clear didactic passages (such as the Pauline epistles). It takes time, intelligence and rigorous scholarly work to put all of that revelation together consistently. The Old Testament saints had only a dim understanding of who the Messiah would be and how He would accomplish His redemptive task; though everything revealed was in fact about Him. The New Testament itself addresses heresies, false doctrines and deficient understandings of the gospel message that were rampant in the first century church (cf. Hebs 6:1). While the Apostles corrected these misunderstandings, they did not say that the people who held them were NOT Christians simply because they did not properly understand how all the pieces fit together. Clearly people had already become Christians, were baptized and were in the church and then had to be corrected in their theology and practice.
Putting together the entirety of God’s revelation into a comprehensive and logically consistent system took over a thousand years. Clearly, there were Christians before the Westminster Assembly who were among the Elect, who did not always understand how all the wonderful promises, precepts and principles of Scripture fit together coherently. Would we deny them membership in the invisible church just because they lived in a time BEFORE godly and learned men had argued, debated and reasoned together to give us a purer, more consistent expression of the “faith once delivered?”
Thirdly, what is it that saves a man from his sins? This may seem too simple a question but surprisingly, some do not seem to grasp that how we answer THIS question will determine how we address the “Arminians” in our midst. Is a man saved because he understands and professes certain theological propositions about the nature of salvation, or is he saved by the grace of God in Christ? “False dichotomy” some will cry, but seriously, think with me for a moment; how DOES God save a man from His sins?
Well, the word of God is preached, God regenerates a sinful man’s heart, giving him faith to turn from his sins, believing that gospel and then confessing Jesus as Lord. “Ah hah!” the wily critic will respond, “but the key is that it is the WORD of God is preached; and Arminianism is not the word of God but the word of man!”
However, is that necessarily so? In Romans 10:9-10 the Apostle Paul CLEARLY writes, “…that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved…” And then in verse 13 he concludes, “…for whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” Now just how advanced and sophisticated a theological understanding of the gospel must a person possess to be saved? Literally, in these verses there is almost NO complicated theology involved at all; simply acknowledging Jesus as Lord and believing “in the heart” that God raised Him from the dead. There is no requirement here for a person to comprehend the subtle (though important) philosophical and theological nuances of free will, what was going on in the eternal mind of God before creation, the extent of Adam’s transgression, the noetic effect of sin, the extent of the atonement, the effects of the Holy Spirit in calling a man, the perseverance of the saints, etc. Yet how much of all these things does a person have to understand for the gospel to be effectual? Some Reformed people seem to assume that BEFORE a man could be converted, he requires the equivalent of a seminary education!
Granted, there are enormous theological implications to confessing Jesus as Lord and believing God raised Him from the dead, important implications; but at this point we are simply inquiring about how much intellectual content is required by God in order to effect a transition from death to life. And the answer is, “none!” God regenerated John the Baptizer’s heart IN HIS MOTHER’S WOMB! There are children whose hearts are regenerated in infancy. Can we not assume that some people of diminished intellect are saved by God’s grace even though their cognitive processes are seriously impaired?
The reason of course is that God decreed that His Elect would be saved; He does His work inside the unregenerate heart giving a person a new nature and a renewed mind. After “conversion” God then works through His Holy Spirit to transform that person’s entire life and thinking. However, at any one moment of time in that person’s life; how would they themselves understand their experience or how well could they articulate it to others? And if their understanding of God’s actions is less than complete, or even wrong, does it negate that work of God?
Converts to the faith carry with them much intellectual baggage from their previous life that can and often does obscure the reality of their new natures. They do not always understand what has happened to them, or how it has happened to them. In fact, depending upon their own education, native intelligence or ability to articulate complex ideas, they may be significantly limited in how they understand this work of God, let alone in being able to express it meaningfully.
Furthermore, they are handicapped by the theology of those who first shared the gospel with them. The person who preached to them that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, died for sins and was resurrected on the third day might not himself understand properly how all these things fit together into a comprehensive and consistent Biblical worldview. But the “convert” does BELIEVE that Jesus is the resurrected Son of God and does CONFESS Him as Lord; and that is all that the Bible requires for salvation. I see nothing in Scripture that says that merely because he might be confused about the process that somehow, it invalidates the work of God in his heart which gave him both the faith, and the ability to profess Christ in the first place.
Therefore for all these reasons, a person could well have a regenerate heart and possess true saving faith in Christ, YET not be accurately express that in consistent terms. To the contrary, they could well give explanations that are even contrary to Scripture because, simply speaking, they just don’t know any better.
God saves a man through a particular process, but the man so saved may misunderstand that process, misinterpret the events leading up to it or even be confused about what God has done in his heart and life. The reality of regeneration is there, but the understanding of that reality may well be limited. To affirm otherwise is to implicitly adopt some form of Gnosticism; salvation by secret knowledge, rather than the active work of God in Christ.
Saving faith in Christ is surely more than giving intellectual assent to a series of theological propositions. “Conversion” requires a regenerate heart that confesses Jesus as Lord and believes that God raised Him from the dead. Now that “confession” is again no mere intellectual formality; it is the recognition that Jesus Christ is HIS Lord; that his life is subject to King Jesus. But would not all good Calvinists argue that a man cannot do that unless God first regenerates his heart and gave him faith in the first place (1 Jn 4:15)?
“But surely, AFTER salvation, that regenerate heart will seek for truth and that truth MUST be some form of the Reformed faith?” This is of course “true” in that regenerate hearts, having been freed from slavery to sin ought to rejoice in the truth and hungrily seek after it (Jn 17:17). But there are several other considerations; first, God gave His church teachers for a reason; not all can or should teach (Jas 3:1). If Christians do not have “good” teachers, then many will never come to a full realization of the truth. “And how shall they hear without a preacher?” Paul asks in Romans 9:14 in a slightly different but still relevant context. Thus if Christians do not have shepherds who understand the truth and teach the truth, then many of them will never understand it either.
Finally, there are sins of intellect as well as of the flesh. No Reformed person would insist that simply because a man’s heart was regenerated that he would never sin again. Christians sin, because we have not yet been perfected. And the most subtle and most dangerous sins of all are sins of the mind. The entire book of Proverbs was written to teach men wisdom; clearly something we do not have by nature. Wisdom is the life-long acquisition and application of God’s unchanging moral principles built into the very fabric of creation. But men can be self-deceived, uninformed, ignorant and sometimes actually STUPID when it comes to understanding God’s wisdom. Therefore, should we not expect that some Christians whose hearts are truly regenerate, who are less than consistent in ALL areas of life, may have a wrong understanding of the process of salvation?
After all, Reformed Christians often suffer from their own sins of intellect; Paul warned specifically about arrogance coming from a greater understanding of the faith (Rms 8:1). Reformed Christians can be snide, condescending, prideful, contemptuous, and nasty towards others whose understanding does not reach their own exalted level (Rms 14:1ff). Furthermore, there are more than a few Reformed Christians who gossip, slander, backbite, brood over offences, etc., in every Reformed church. While their understanding of the faith may be superior to the average broad evangelical’s, their application is just as deficient. Isn’t it just a little hypocritical to call one person’s salvation into question because he lacks a theoretical construct that consistently deals with the Biblical data, but then turn a blind eye to our own mental and ethical failings? When reading through the New Testament, to which does the Holy Spirit give more space, the intellectual understanding of the faith, or the ethical application of the faith (1 Jn 2:29, 3:4, 6, 9, etc.)?
Granted, true, Biblical religion ought to have both sound doctrine and sound application; the presence of one does not excuse the lack of the other. But our point here is that ALL Christians fall short of the glory of God and perhaps we ought to be a little more concerned about taking logs out of our own eyes, than worrying about the splinters in other people’s eyes.
Arminianism has never saved anyone because it IS a deficient understanding of the gospel; Arminianism only makes salvation a possibility dependant on a man’s good works. Thus, in this sense, Arminianism IS a false gospel for only God can and does save sinners as a sovereign act of His eternal will. Men cannot save themselves; they are spiritually dead (Eph 2:1) and the gospel is foolishness to them (1 Cor 2:14) until He shines His light into their hearts, giving them faith (2 Cor 4:5, Eph 2:9, etc.). But the point of course is that such people may still be saved because they have called upon the name of the Lord for salvation, submitting themselves to His Lordship and believing in the depths of their being that God raised Him from the dead.
Granted, “Invite Jesus into your heart” is not the gospel and no one was ever saved by praying a “prayer” or walking down the aisle after an “invitation.” However, when the fact that Jesus Christ died for sinners is preached, and men are called to turn from their sins, receive His forgiveness and submit themselves to His Lordship, God can choose to regenerate a person’s heart giving him faith to trust in Christ. That person may well then pray the “sinner’s prayer” or “raise his hand” or whatever, but at that point it may well be that he is just making that confession that Jesus is Lord Paul talked about in Romans 10:9-10.
However, ideas do have implications; what we believe really does affect our life, and our ministry. A Christian who never grows in his understanding of the faith cannot help but be deficient in his values, his ethics and his practice of the faith. Our God is the true God (Jn 17:17), and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth (Jn 4:24). Being ignorant of the truth, or suppressing the truth or distorting the truth will have profound effects on the health of the church and the advancement of the Kingdom. There can be no doubt that one of the reasons for the present deplorable state of the church of Jesus Christ in the world today is a direct result of a mangled, confused and inconsistent understanding of the Scriptures. Furthermore, there are undoubtedly many within the broad evangelical community whose distorted understanding of the gospel is the result of unregenerate hearts (tares, if you will) who use doctrinal confusion as a means of entering the Church and keeping her from her high and holy calling.
The Reformed faith was once the almost universal consensus in America during our colonial period. Pietism, Revivalism and Arminianism were a three pronged attack from within the covenant community that undermined and destroyed Reformed orthodoxy. However, out there, in broad evangelical churches, there are those that belong to Christ, despite their theological deficiencies. Sometimes they do not know better, because no one has ever told them anything different. They hunger and thirst for righteousness, a deeper walk and spiritual meat, but have no one to feed them.
Rather than being contemptuous of such people, or insinuate that they are little better than baptized pagans, surely, those of us who have been granted greater insight ought to be trying to reach them? The great task of the Reformed church over the next generation is going to require Calvinists to get on their knees, repent of our own sins, and then in love and gentleness reach out to these brethren to bring them back to the richness of orthodox Christianity (2 Tim 2:23-24). When we reformed folk learn how to demonstrate love and service to our brethren, meeting them where they are, and then leading them to where God wants them to be, perhaps He will grant us a new reformation and true revival of religion.