In this post, as before, I am
using the term Arminianism as an umbrella term for non-Reformed Christianity. I
realize that many modern evangelicals do not agree with every point of
classical Arminian doctrine such as what’s generally called the doctrine of
eternal security, which classic Arminianism denies, however, for the sake of
brevity I will use this title. If theology can be divided into categories, the
chief point of contention is on the way of salvation, which modern and historic
Arminianism are in agreement on, and this will be my focus.
First, before I delve into
this, a word about my motivation. Some may wonder why I harp on Arminianism so
much, especially when I unwittingly believed its tenets for so long. Well the
short answer to that question is because theology matters. What you think about
God and the Christian life affects everything. It is for this very reason that
I harp on Arminianism, because when your eyes are opened to the truth; you
cannot help but speak about what you have seen. Can a blind man, after his eyes
are opened, remain silent? Can a deaf man who suddenly hears, not shout for
joy? My eyes have been opened to see the truth in God’s word which has always
been there, yet I somehow missed. My “conversion” to Reformed theology was so
transformational; it was almost as if I was saved all over again. I cannot help
talking about it. I cannot stop defending it. I cannot quench the fire burning
in my heart to see Reformed, biblical truth proclaimed. I will not!
Doctrine
Divides
We hear this over and over; to
the point that many people don’t even want to discuss doctrine. They just want
to get along. They claim we are splitting hairs over an in-house debate that
isn't overly important. The mantra goes something like this: "We should
all just love Jesus and love one another." I agree with this
wholeheartedly as far as it goes, yet the minute you ask, who is Jesus?, you're
up to your neck in doctrine. Yes, doctrine does divide, but that is the whole
point. For example: if we take the view that doctrine is divisive and should therefore
be avoided, then was there no need for the Protestant Reformation? Didn't the
Reformation divide people? Should we just try to get along with Roman Catholics
and not discuss the whole reason we are Protestants? No, we should not sweep our
theological differences under the rug; we should evangelize Roman Catholics
because they are preaching a different gospel.
Was there no need for the
apostles to preach the gospel of grace over against the Judaizers? For the sake
of unity, should they have ignored the fact that we are not justified by works,
but by the righteousness of Christ imputed by faith? Didn't this teaching cause
division? Just read the book of Galatians. Even Jesus Himself said He had come
to bring a sword, so that family members would be divided against themselves,
(Matt. 10:35-36).
Sound doctrine is what
separates us from cults and false religions. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses
believe in Jesus you know. Should we therefore allow them to become members of
churches and preach in our pulpits all in the name of unity? Of course not, we
should call them to repentance and show them the truth about Jesus, which of
course, involves doctrine.
A Gospel Issue
Most Christians today reject
Pelagianism and believe that grace is necessary for salvation;
however, non-Reformed Christians believe the grace given in salvation can be
resisted. In other words, grace is necessary, but not sufficient to save.
Reformed Christians believe in saving grace, that is, grace that actually
saves. When God effectually calls someone unto salvation, He accomplishes it.
His grace does not fail.
If you ask an Arminian if he
was saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, he will emphatically
say, “Yes!” Arminians rightly believe in salvation by grace, through faith, in
Christ alone. So what's the big deal? Why split hairs? The problem is, they are
not consistent. On the one hand they affirm correct soteriology, but on the
other hand they champion free will. So their doctrine of salvation leads to the
conclusion that we are not really saved by grace alone,
because we are saved partly by our own free will.
Many people don’t take their
theology to its logical conclusion, but with Arminianism you are forced to
conclude that apart from the will of the creature cooperating with the grace of
God, Jesus is powerless to save. He wants to save people, but if they won’t
give in, then He is thwarted. You are left with an impotent God who is
contingent upon the will of His own creations.
Arminians also cannot explain
why they believed the gospel but their neighbor didn’t. If we are saved by God’s
grace alone, and everyone is receiving this “prevenient” grace; everyone is
being "wooed" by the Holy Spirit, then why did you have the power to
overcome your sin nature and respond in faith? Why did your neighbor reject the
gospel but you embraced it? Arminian theology simply has no answer for this. If
you responded positively to the grace of God, but the person in the pew next to
you rejected it, then grace wasn’t the cause of your salvation, you were.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll
say it again. Either you were saved because you were better than someone, or
you were saved because of the sovereign grace of God alone! There is no other
option.
Further, I have yet to hear a
consistent, biblical answer from a non-Reformed believer as to how an
unregenerate person who is dead in sin can freely respond to the gospel and
produce saving faith. How can slaves of sin choose righteousness prior to
regeneration? Slaves of sin cannot unshackle themselves. Only God can do that. Why
do those who love darkness suddenly love light (John 3:19)? Where does their
faith come from? If we have the power to repent and believe prior to
regeneration, then we aren't totally corrupt. If we aren't totally corrupt,
then why do they need grace to believe? But if grace is necessary for salvation, why is
it insufficient?
Arminian theology chokes on
these questions, and when they really start trying to answer them, they end up
sounding like Calvinists, which is highly amusing.
Our will is not unimportant. Reformed
Christians certainly believe that we
are the ones who willingly choose Christ, but only because He has first chosen us
(Eph.1:4-5, 1 John 4:19) and only because we have been regenerated first. As
Jesus said in John 3:3, "unless a man is born again, he cannot see the
kingdom of God," yet Arminians would have us believe that unregenerate
people can not only see, but choose the kingdom while they are still dead in
their trespasses and sins.
As I’ve said before John 1:13
should be the end of the discussion forever. Believers are those: “who
were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man,
but of God.”
Now let me be very clear. I'm
not saying Arminian Christians don't preach the gospel, of course they do. Many
of them are passionate for souls and are doing great evangelistic works, but if
you analyze their theology carefully you find inconsistencies and confusion. As
Christians we need to be clear and consistent. We need to be precise in our
communication, especially when it comes to the gospel. In Colossians 4:3-4,
even Paul himself asks for prayer that he might preach the gospel clearly. If the
Apostle Paul was concerned about preaching with clarity, how much more should
we be?
I harp on Arminianism for the
sake of the gospel, because it must be clear. I bring these things up to make
people analyze what they believe and why. As I like to say, theology matters,
and Reformed theology matters more.
Impoverished
Theology
As R. C. Sproul has said,
Arminian theology is an impoverished theology; it is a blight upon the church.
In fact, he minces no words and calls it out right heresy. Lest you think he is
overstating the case, the Synod of Dort in 1618-19 agreed with this. The entire
synod unanimously denounced the teachings of Jacobus Arminius, which were
delineated in the Remonstrance of 1610, as heretical. This is no small matter. I
find it highly ironic that from a historical perspective, Arminians today are
aligning themselves with heresy and they don't even realize it.
I agree with Dr. Sproul,
Arminianism is an impoverished theology. It demeans the sovereignty of God,
unduly promotes the freedom of man, waters down humanity’s sinful nature, and
confuses the gospel of grace. These are serious errors that cannot be ignored.
Plus, it is hopelessly inconsistent. As James White often says, "The only
consistent Arminianism is open theism." But that is a topic for another
post.
Now Arminians, or
Semi-Pelagians, or non-Calvinists, or whatever you want to call those who are
not Reformed, would deny what I have just said. But if you listen to their teaching
carefully, and read their books you will see the fallacies. They claim that God
is sovereign, but their view of free will undermines it. They claim God is
omniscient, but deny His decree; as if foreknowledge is based upon God passively
looking into the future. They claim that man is utterly sinful, but they
believe sinners can choose Christ prior to regeneration. They claim to believe
in salvation by grace alone, but they
believe grace is insufficient.
Finally, Arminianism is a
man-centered theology. Again, they will deny this, but when was the last time
you heard an Arminian preach a sermon on God’s freedom? I've listened to
Arminian preachers for over thirty years and I never once heard a sermon on God’s
absolute freedom to do as He pleases in all of creation and save whom He wills;
His freedom to manifest His glory through the display of both His mercy and justice, although this is exactly
what Romans 9:22-24 teaches. Instead, they are far more interested in their own
freedom. In fact, I would say that free will should really be the god of the
Arminian, because even the Almighty is subject to it. Even God cannot overcome
it. In their view, God has somehow limited Himself because He gave His creatures
free will that He cannot violate. Yet if God Himself cannot overcome my free
will, how is He then omnipotent? If God limits Himself in any way, He is no
longer God.
Reformed theology on the other
hand is a vast, deep, biblically faithful, God-glorifying theology. It has a
rich historical tradition, a wealth of literature, and some of the greatest
theologians, evangelists, and teachers in church history. We begin and end with
God; God's glory, God's purposes, God's self revelation, and the display of all
His attributes culminating in the
redemption of a people unto Himself through the incarnation, death and
resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Reformers weren't inventing
something new, they were recapturing something old. They recovered the
teachings of Paul and the Apostles and Jesus Himself. In short, Reformed
theology is synonymous with biblical theology. Anyone who faithfully reads
their Bible, lays down their presuppositions, and uses a consistent hermeneutic
will see this.
