SATURDAY DEVOTION: THOMAS `a KEMPIS, "DENY SELF AND IMITATE CHRIST"

My son, says the Lord, the more you can go out of yourself, the more will you be able to enter into Me. Even to desire nothing that is without produces inward peace, so that forsaking of yourself inwardly joins you to God. I wish you to learn perfect renunciation of yourself in My will, without contradiction or complaint. Follow Me: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).

Without the Way, there is no going; without the Truth, there is no knowing; without the Life, there is no living. I am the Way, which you ought to follow; the Truth, which you ought to believe; the Life, which you ought to hope for. I am the Way inviolable, the Truth infallible, the Life unending. I am the Way that is straightest, the Truth that is highest, the Life that is truest, the Life blessed, the Life uncreated. If you remain in My way, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8:32), and you shall lay hold on eternal life.

If you will to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments (Matt. 19:17). If you will know the truth, believe Me. If you will to be perfect, go and sell all that you have (Matt. 19:21). If you will to be My disciple, deny yourself utterly (Luke 9:23). If you will possess a blessed life, despise this present life. If you will be exalted in heaven, humble yourself in this world (John 12:25). If you will reign with Me, bear the cross with Me (Luke 14:27). For only the servants of the cross find the way of blessedness and of true light.

O Lord Jesus, forasmuch as Your way was narrow and despised by the world, grant me grace to imitate You, though with the world's contempt. The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his Lord (Matt. 10:24). Let your servant be exercised in Your life, for therein is my salvation and true holiness. Whatever I read or hear besides it does not refresh me nor delight me to the full.

My son, inasmuch as you know and have read all these things, happy shall you be, if you do them (John 13:17) . . . O Lord Jesus, as You have said and promised, so truly let it be, and let it be mine to win it. I have received the cross, I have received it from Your hand. I will bear it, and bear it even unto death, as You have laid it upon me. Truly a good man's life is the cross, but it guides him to heaven. We have now begun; it is not lawful to go back, neither must we leave it.

Come, brethren, we go forward together, Jesus will be with us. For the sake of Jesus we have received this cross; for the sake of Jesus let us persevere in the cross. He will be our Helper, who is also our Guide and Forerunner. Behold, our King enters in before us, and He will fight for us. Let us follow courageously, let no man fear any terrors. Let us be ready to die valiantly in battle, nor bring such disgrace on our glory as to flee from the cross.

Thomas `a Kempis, Of the Imitation of Christ (New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 1981), 177-79.

RECONCILING UNCONDITIONAL REPROBATION WITH "GOD IS MOST GLORIFIED IN US WHEN WE ARE MOST SATISFIED IN HIM"

Repent! What a word. American culture has become almost immune to such a word. It is antiquated and quaint ~ reminiscent of the evangelicalism of the 1950's ~ associated with Billy Graham crusades and one's grandparents' church, where some fired-up preacher spits and yells about how sinful everyone is and how Christians have been consumed by worldliness. Repent!

Spiritual apathy breeds contempt. That is what happened to the Israelites. God sent them into exile in an effort to punish their sin and win back their hearts (Ezekiel 33.10-11); He called for their repentance. Nothing has changed. God still requires faith and repentance (two sides of the same coin). As a matter of fact, one aspect of God's grace is the bringing about of repentance (Rom. 2:4). God initiates repentance by grace, but it is the responsibility of the individual to respond in repentance. God will not repent for a person, nor will He irresistibly cause a person to repent (such a thing cuts against the grain of His design regarding salvation). God will not believe for a person, nor will He irresistibly cause a person to believe in Christ. He has the ability to do those things, but has not chosen to work in that manner.

Of course, thus far, I am begging the question: If God genuinely desires the repentance of sinners, and takes no pleasure whatsoever in the death of the wicked, but would rather be pleased at their repentance (Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11), then how can anyone insist that God has foreordained by a mere decree to effectually lead one person to repent (via regeneration, based on unconditional election) and not another, as Calvinism promotes? This is yet another example, in my opinion, of an inconsistency between clear biblical teaching and Calvinism. The above-mentioned scenario is not an antinomy, it is irreconcilable and a contradiction of terms.

John Piper is convinced that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him. Yet, for some reason, God would not be glorified if He effectually (in the Calvinistic sense) saved everyone (or at least desired to do so). Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell write:

Perhaps what Piper is thinking here is that God owes it to himself since wrath is a part of his nature; if none are damned, a part of his nature is not manifested, and he is being untrue to himself. But if this is what Piper is thinking, we think it betrays serious confusion. For wrath is not an essential aspect of God's nature like holy love is. Rather, wrath is entirely a contingent matter: Wrath is the form holy love takes in response to sin and evil. If there were no sin and evil, there would be no need for wrath ever to be displayed. But when sin occurs, God responds in wrath to demonstrate the truth both about himself and about those who sin. Yet his purpose is always to show his holy love. He desires the best for his sinful creatures, and what is best for them is that they acknowledge their sin and repent of it. . . .

For Piper, however, human freedom is not the explanation for why some are lost even though God is willing to save all persons. For God can move anyone to respond freely and positively to his grace. So far as human freedom is concerned, he could move all persons to accept his bona fide offer of salvation. But in the end he can't do so because, Piper argues, it would compromise his glory.

This claim seems profoundly inconsistent with what Piper says is the single most important sentence in his theology, namely, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him." Those who are saved surely experience more satisfaction in God than the damned! And God himself is satisfied when sinners repent and believe the gospel . . . (Luke 15:7). What an amazing thought! Heaven rejoices when a single sinner repents! If God is anything like this shepherd, then it is hardly credible that he needs or desires to damn some of his lost creatures to glorify himself. Quite the contrary, he glories in showing mercy and rejoices when his lost human creatures return to the fold.

If God can save all persons without overriding anyone's freedom, then surely he would be fully glorified thereby. Damnation is not necessary to display God's full glory unless we are free in the libertarian sense and some persons simply won't accept God's grace (which is not the Calvinist position). Piper then is no more successful than Packer was in providing a consistent account of how God can be sincerely willing to save persons he has not chosen to favor with electing grace.¹

What Arminians are challenged to produce is evidence that unconditional election and reprobation inherently demonstrates disingenuousness on God's part. The Oxford Dictionary renders the word genuine as "truly what something is said to be; authentic." God has made this promise: Everyone who trusts in Jesus Christ will not perish (be lost or ruined) but have eternal life (John 3:16).

Bible believing Christians take God at His word. If a person will trust and continue to trust in Christ then he or she will not be lost or ruined but will have eternal life. In Scripture, the promise is granted to everyone without qualification ~ to everyone without qualification. And why is this offer granted to everyone? Why is the promise not granted only to the unconditionally elect?

Paul instructed Timothy that "God our Savior . . . wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:4-6 NET Bible). If it appears that I quote that verse a lot, it is true: I am guilty as charged. And I will keep quoting it until people start believing it ~ genuinely. Peter corroborates the message: God "does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9 NET Bible).

If this desire of God's is genuine, "truly what something is said to be," then why would He have unconditionally reprobated millions of human beings from eternity past by a mere decree? And if one is to admit that God genuinely offers salvation to the non-elect if they would believe, and God really would save them if they would believe, then why would God need to unconditionally reprobate them? Furthermore, God knows full-well that the non-elect will not believe, and that they are incapable of believing, without His proactive grace in their heart. With this knowledge about the desperate state of the non-elect, those to whom God never intended on displaying His grace in order for them to freely believe in Jesus Christ, then in what sense can God's alleged offer of salvation be genuine to them?

The offer is empty; the offer is lip service. I posit that the offer is only insisted upon as genuine by some Calvinists in the effort to protect God's integrity. At least most Calvinists have the rectitude to admit that God only causes some people to hear and understand the gospel, tragic as that is. The end of the matter is that, if God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him, then the more people that trust in Christ Jesus the more glorified God will be. Therefore, let us be faithful to the gospel and spread the word of Christ. The Spirit of God goes before us, proving "the world wrong concerning sin and righteousness and judgment" (John 16:8 NET Bible). God will be faithful to do His part, and He is calling His children to be faithful to do theirs (Matt. 28:19-20).

1 Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I am not a Calvinist (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 178-180.

CALVIN, BEZA, ARMINIUS AND AMYRAUT: THE ORTHODOXY AND HETERODOXY OF MENTORS AND THEIR SUCCESSORS

Moises Amyraut (1596-1664), pitured left, is getting some much needed exposure lately. I invite readers to visit Brian N. Daniels' website for further information on Amyraut's life and theology: Amyraldianism: Inconsistent Hybrid or Biblical Truth.

Amyraut was considered a heretic by strict supralapsarian Calvinists for rejecting the doctrine of Limited Atonement; yet he boldly defended the other four points of TULIP theology, including the theory that regeneration must precede faith. His theology today is also known as four-point Calvinism.

In the introduction of his book, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy, Brian Armstrong notes that

the most overlooked problem in research having to do with the thought of Calvinism concerns the relationship of the thought of Calvin himself to that of his followers. It is axiomatic that thought does not remain static and that most great thinkers have been but imperfectly understood by their successors."¹

That latter comment has also been noted by Calvinist Richard A. Muller concerning Arminius. Many times successors nuance their mentor's teachings, so much so that further theological deviation is almost inevitable, even as early as a decade after their death. Arminius, for example, shaped his own theology and did not follow the strict supralapsarian predestinarianism of his mentor, Theodore Beza (John Calvin's successor).

It has also been claimed by many that Calvin's followers were more Calvinistic theologically than was Calvin himself. Was Calvin a supralapsarian, for instance? He never openly claimed as much (though there is enough evidence in his Institutes to warrant such a claim). Yet, his successor, Theodore Beza, openly taught supralapsarianism (as did his colleague Francis Gomarus).

Arminius thought himself able to rightly interpret the Reformed theology of both the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism (even attempting to amend many statements contained therein). In the same way, Moises Amyraut, professor of theology at the prestigious French Reformed Academy of Saumur, also believed himself apt to rightly interpret Calvin and Reformed theology. Though so few know who Amyraut is today, Armstrong notes that Amyraut was "without contest the most influential Reformed theologian of the seventeenth century."²

But why was Amyraldianism considered a heresy by many strict, Classical Calvinists? The answer is quite simple: much as it is today among some Calvinists, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, only a five-point Calvinistic dogma (TULIP theology) was considered orthodox; every other system of theology was branded intolerable and heretical. Need we be reminded of the Synod of Dort?

It was Amyraut's doctrine of predestination that caused him so much consternation from strict supralapsarian Calvinists. Amstrong comments:

It is with the doctrine of predestination that Amyraut's name has traditionally been associated in the history of theology, and there is good cause for this, for his deviation from (and one may even say his attack upon) Calvinist orthodoxy is most acute at this point . . . [Moreover, the] peculiar emphases of Amyraut's covenant theology appear to have been expressly designed to controvert the orthodox discussions of the decrees of God and of predestination itself.

Despite the importance of Amyraut's doctrine of predestination, however, it seems that all of his interpreters, from Schweizer to Laplanche, with the sole exception of Moltmann, have missed the significance of the most important element in his discussion of this doctrine ~ the juxtaposition of God's secret and revealed will.

One of the most arresting features of Amyraut's doctrine of predestination is that his opposition to orthodox teaching was made in the name of Calvin and the early reformers, presenting at the same time a decided bias against Beza, Martyr, and Zanchi.³

Just what were his views on God's alleged "secret and revealed will," and how did they differ from those of Beza? Amyraut believed that predestination should not be expounded upon prior to one's doctrine of grace. His emphasis upon the grace of God is clear from the following quote:

For, since we believe in Jesus Christ, and since we give ourselves as much as possible to the works of sanctification, and since experience shows us that many others do not believe and that they are abandoned unto sin, it is necessary either that this difference depends on something in us or that God has vouchsafed to us some grace that He has not given to others.

Now it is at this point at which predestination is introduced ~ when it is a question of knowing the origin of this difference. For we are taught that by nature we are not better than others and consequently, since we believe and so many others do not, this means God has dealt with us disparately.⁴

For Amyraut, Calvinists focused too much on God's decree to unconditionally elect some unto faith and salvation and unconditionally reprobate or damn others. He believed one's focus should remain preeminently upon the grace of God. Amyraut was convinced that he alone was interpreting Calvin rightly. Armstrong noted:

Amyraut's claim that he is recapturing the emphases of Calvin is most vehement with regard to this doctrine. He not only believed that he was true to Calvin when he contended that the doctrine of predestination was legitimate in theology only as an ex post facto explanation of grace, but he also used Calvin to justify and support his own position.⁵

Though Arminius came to a nuanced view of God's grace than did Amyraut, rejecting Amyraut's theory of regeneration preceding faith, still, in Amyraut is found yet another example of a theologian from Church history who considered the supralapsarian Calvinism of Beza and Gomarus as a departure from historic Reformed theology, especially on the matter of grace.

(As a sidenote on God's grace and wrath: All of God's attributes could be shared within the fellowship of the Trinity in eternity past, before God created anything. Those who teach that wrath is one of God's attributes have to answer how that particular attribute could have been shared within the fellowship of the Trinity. If God had never decided to create any cognizant being, how could God's alleged attribute of wrath be experienced or shared within the Godhead? Certainly, His love, holiness, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, omniobenvolence, righteousness, and all of the other positive attributes could have been shared in the fellowship of the Godhead. But God's wrath: how might that alleged attribute be expressed?

(Supralapsarians have the answer. God decided to create human beings in His image, decreed their fall into sin, and from eternity unconditionally chose to reprobate ~ eternally damn to hell ~ millions of individuals, in order for Him to express His wrath.)

1 Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), xvii.

2 Ibid., xviii.

3 Ibid., 159.

4 Ibid., 161.

5 Ibid., 161.

THREE REASONS WHY CALVINISM SHOULD BE REJECTED: 3) SCRIPTURE AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HERMENEUTICS

It is noted by Arminians that Calvinism is merely an exercise in scriptural proof-texting ~ a faulty presuppositional system in search of biblical warrant. That is a pretty serious charge. Granted, Calvinists admit much the same about Arminianism. How can such statements be proved? For clearly, the burden of proof rests upon the one who makes the claim. What we shall find is that Arminians believe that Calvinists do not have a hermeneutical problem as much as an epistemological problem, for everyone has a hermeneutic (a system by which one interprets a text). What is under scrutiny is how Calvinists arrive at their presuppositions.

3. SCRIPTURE AND HERMENEUTICS

In the experience of many people, they were challenged by a Calvinistic interpretation of a passage or group of passages and led to believe that Calvinism offers the only tenable explanation for said passage(s). For example, John Piper admits that his professor's Calvinistic understanding of Romans 9 convinced him of the truth of Calvinism. Evidently, Piper's libertarian free will view blinded him to the truth of Calvinism's definition of God's absolute and exhaustive sovereignty inherently taught by the apostle Paul himself in Romans 9. Prior to this illumination, Piper breathed "the independent, self-sufficient, self-esteeming, self-exalting air that you and I breathe every day of our lives in America." (That is one of the most easily recognizable straw men that I have ever witnessed.) He notes:

But thanks be to God's mercy and patience, at the end of the semester I wrote in my blue book for the final exam, "Romans 9 is like a tiger going about devouring free-willers like me." That was the end of my love affair with human autonomy and the ultimate self-determination of my will. My worldview simply could not stand against the scriptures, especially Romans 9. And it was the beginning of a lifelong passion to see and savor the supremacy of God in absolutely everything.

So, during the course of a college semester, Piper went from an independent, self-sufficient, self-esteeming, self-exalting individual (who genuinely made his own decisions from various choices) to a theologically-fatalistic view of God controlling the desires and decisions of all people. I suppose that God is still being merciful and patient with the majority of His people whom He has yet to enlighten concerning His all-controlling sovereignty. But I digress.

Let me offer you the following set of presuppositions and then read the subsequent proof-texts for them: Because human beings are utterly depraved and cannot will themselves to come to Jesus Christ for salvation (nor do they desire such), then God has unconditionally elected some unto faith and salvation and others unconditionally unto unbelief and reprobation, for the glory of His grace and wrath. After all, God is sovereign, and he owes salvation to no one.

"Oh my," says the one receiving those presuppositions. "Things sound rather desperate. How do you know these things?" "Well," says the Calvinist, "the apostle Paul states that no one seeks God (Rom. 3:10), and that because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, . . . it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so (Rom. 8:7 NET Bible). Those whom God foreknew [think elect] he also predestined . . . And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified (Rom. 8:29-30). What shall we say then? Is their injustice with God? Absolutely not! For he says to Moses: 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then, it [salvation] does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy . . . So then, 'God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden' (Rom. 9:14-16, 18 NET Bible)."

"Those were pretty convincing passages," says the unsuspecting Christian. "But I thought the Bible taught that God wanted to save everyone." The Calvinist responds: "The apostle Paul anticipated your response. He retorts: You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?' But who indeed are you ~ a mere human being ~ to talk back to God? Does what is molded say to the molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' 'Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use?' (Rom. 9:19-21 NET Bible)"

"Well," says the Calvinistic candidate, "I don't see how any other interpretation of those passages could be true. I guess I'm a Calvinist. Thank the LORD for having mercy and patience upon my ignorance and stubbornness."

John Piper's conversion to Calvinism was very similar to my own almost eleven years ago. Presuppositions were set in place, a hermeneutical grid, if you will, and then various proof-texts were presented to me, along with R. C. Sproul's book, Chosen by God. Calvinism had to be true!

But let us choose another set of presuppositions with the subsequent proof-texts and see whether the system is as compelling and valid as is Calvinism: Jesus Christ, being born into this world with flesh and blood through His mother Mary, cannot be God. Jesus was created by God to fulfill a specific goal: to show us how to live for God. Jesus never claimed to be God, but He gave all glory and honor to the only true and living God in heaven.

Can any of those claims be supported with scriptural proof-texts? Well, Jesus was certainly born of and resurrected by God with flesh and blood, for He Himself, after His resurrection, stated to Thomas: "Put your finger here, and examine my side. Do not continue in your unbelief, but believe" (John 20:27 NET Bible). Jesus also stated: "The Father is greater than I am" (John 14:28 NET Bible). Jesus even said, "I am ascending . . . to my God and your God" (John 20:17). The God in heaven is the one true God (John 17:3), and Jesus is not God ~ for there is only one God (Deut. 6:4), and He is "greater" than Jesus, and He is claimed to be the God whom Jesus worshipped.

The problem with these proof-texts is that they fail to take into consideration other verses of Scripture. For example, John wrote of Jesus, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God" (John 1:1 NET Bible). Jesus has always existed with the Father, God, from eternity past, and not only was He with God, but He was "fully God." Jesus had no beginning. Thus He was not created by God the Father. Moreover, Jesus created all things (John 1:3-4; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:10) and also "sustains all things by his powerful word" (Heb. 1:3 NET Bible). Also, God the Father called Jesus by the covenant name of God (YHWH ~ I AM, cf. Exodus 3:14; Phil. 2:11) at Hebrews 1:10, and earlier called Jesus "God" at Hebrews 1:8. Clearly, Jesus is God: He is God the Son.

The problem with Calvinistic proof-texts is that they too fail to take into consideration other verses of Scripture. So, when a Calvinist reads a passage such as 1 Timothy 2:4, that God "wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth," he or she must interpret it in light of Calvinism as a whole. Now, this method is actually accepted academically. Everyone interprets Scripture by a hermeneutical grid (that is an academic way of saying that everyone "brings something to the table," so to speak, when interpreting Scripture). Grant R. Osborne, author of The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, states:

A close reading of the text cannot be done without a perspective provided by one's preunderstanding as identified by a "sociology of knowledge" perspective. Reflection itself demands mental categories, and these are built on one's presupposed worldview and by the faith or reading community to which one belongs. Since neutral exegesis is impossible, no necessarily "true" or final interpretation is possible. There will always be differences of opinion in a finite world. However, this does not demand polyvalence. Probability theory allows critical interaction and movement toward the intended meaning, however elusive it may prove at times, so long as the communities are open to critical dialogue.¹

The reason why Classical Reformed Arminians must reject Calvinism is because they believe its presuppositions ~ its hermeneutical grid, the manner by which all Scripture is interpreted ~ is faulty. And Calvinists believe the same concerning Classical Arminianism. What each camp should be concerned about is the epistemology of the other. Why, for example, does the Calvinist think that in order for God to be sovereign He must control the desires and decisions of all people? Why does the Calvinist think that God unconditionally elected some unto faith and salvation and others unto unbelief and reprobation? The answer is that Calvinists believe that those conceptions, those presuppositions, come directly from Scripture.

If God is exhaustively sovereign, as Calvinists insist, then what would one expect not to find in Scripture where God's sovereignty is concerned? If God "determines the desires and decisions of people"², then one should not find God (or anyone else in the Bible) claiming that a person or a group of people performed an action that was contrary to the will of God. And yet, that is exactly what we do find throughout Scripture (e.g. Isaiah 5:4; 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2-3; Hosea 8:2-4). God, mind you, is still sovereign. Though God does not control people, i.e. predetermine the desires and decisions which people experience, He does govern His world.

Also, if God unconditionally elected some unto faith and salvation and others unconditionally unto unbelief and reprobation, as Calvinists insist, then what would one expect not to find in Scripture where God's will or desire for humanity's salvation is concerned? If God has unconditionally predetermined to save some and not others by divine decree, then one should not find God declaring His desire to see all people come to salvation and a knowledge of the truth, which is in Jesus Christ. And yet, that is exactly what we do find throughout Scripture (e.g. Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11; John 1:3-5, 7, 9-12, 29; 3:16-17; 6:29; Rom. 2:4; 11:32; 1 Tim. 2:4; Titus 2:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; Rev. 22:17).

It would do Calvinists a service to remind them the statement made by Fritz Guy: "Christianity does not have a vested interest in hell."³ No one should be eager to see God's wrath poured out upon the lost. Even God Himself admitted: "Say to them, As I live, says the LORD GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways" (Ezekiel 33:11 NRSV). Could God be any more empathetic towards the lost than that? He takes absolutely no pleasure whatsoever that the lost suffer His wrath for spurning His holiness. Fritz Guy continues:

Yet the thoughtful Christian must also take account of another, equally strong moral reality and biblical emphasis ~ namely, the sense of eschatological judgment, a divine activity of judgment that does not in fact decide eternal destiny but discloses it. . . .

To reject the grace that sustains one's existence is a monumental ontological blunder; it doesn't have to be "punished" by a new divine act, for its own consequences are intrinsic, inevitable, and decisive. "Hell . . . is not a punishment for turning one's back on Christ and choosing the road that leads to destruction. It is where the road goes."

God's passionate love for his creation and his intention to save all of humanity provide a real potential of eternal life for every human being ~ a universal possibility of salvation, which must be logically, at least in some sense, also a possibility of universal salvation. This possibility is not, however, the script for an infinitely intricate and complicated puppet show whose every movement is programed in advance by the Ultimate and Omnipotent Puppeteer; and so it can never be proclaimed a reality, but only (at most) a hope.⁴

The Bible clearly states that God is willing to "show his wrath and to make known his power" (Rom. 9:22a NRSV). God has "endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made [or prepared] for destruction" (Rom. 9:22b NRSV). But nowhere in Scripture is it stated that God prepared the objects of His wrath beforehand, to that end, nor that those objects were unconditionally elected for His wrath. Calvinists insist on far more than what Scripture actually teaches. And they do so on philosophical grounds (e.g. the doctrine of Limited Atonement ~ in its intent ~ was solely based on philosophical reasoning rather than on explicit teaching of Scripture).

CONCLUSION

The last three posts have offered all Christians of all ages three basic reasons why they should reject Calvinism as a viable option for their systematic theology: 1) historical early church testimony was undeniably Arminian in nature, not Calvinistic; 2) Calvinism fails its goal to bring God glory through its core doctrines (emphases upon unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace, to say nothing of exhaustive determinism and the supra- and infralapsarian schemes); and most important 3) Calvinism is merely an exercise in scriptural proof-texting: it is a faulty presuppositional system in search of biblical warrant. What is under scrutiny is the Calvinist's epistemology: why they have adopted certain presuppositions. Once these are examined and weighed against the whole tenor of Scripture, then it becomes clear that the system as a whole cannot be accepted, at least not without holding to inconsistencies and a desperate appeal to mystery or antinomy.

1 Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 516.

2 Wayne A. Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teaching of the Christian Faith, ed. Jeff Purswell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 146.

3 Fritz Guy, "The Universality of God's Love," in The Grace of God and the Will of Man, ed. Clark Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers 1995), 45.

4 Ibid.

THREE REASONS WHY CALVINISM SHOULD BE REJECTED: 2) GOD IS TO BE GLORIFIED

The second reason offered as to why Calvinism should be rejected by all orthodox Christians is due to its failure to bring glory to God through its doctrines. Calvinist John Piper defines the glory of God as

the going public of his infinite worth. I define the holiness of God as the infinite value of God, the infinite intrinsic worth of God. And when that goes public in creation, the heavens are telling the glory of God, and human beings are manifesting his glory, because we're created in his image, and we're trusting his promises so that we make him look gloriously trustworthy.

So, the glory of God, in my own restatement, is the universal acknowledging of the holiness of God, and of His faithfulness to His promises. His people are to trust His promises so that we make him look gloriously trustworthy to others.

The word glory in Hebrew is kabod and means "honor; glory; great quantity; multitude; wealth; reputation [majesty]; splendor . . . Kabod refers to the great physical weight or 'quantity' of a thing."¹ The word glory in Greek is doxa and means "opinion, estimate, whether good or bad concerning some one; but . . . generally, in the sacred writ. always, good opinion concerning one, and as resulting from that, praise, honor, glory: Lk. 14:10; Heb. 3:3; 1 Pet. 5:4."²

2. GOD IS TO BE GLORIFIED

Thus for God to be glorified by us He must be declared to others as holy, good, faithful and worthy of praise and honor. God is holy and utterly other, and He is faithful to keep His promises. Because of these stellar qualities God is worthy of praise and honor and glory. Amen.

All people, however, have not shared this opinion. The apostle Paul wrote to the Romans concerning those who knew God but did not glorify him as God (Rom. 1:21). The Greek word for knew is ginosko and means, in its various applications, to know and understand completely; to know by experience.³ Compare Jesus' words to those whom He will declare: "I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!" (Matt. 7:23 NET Bible) The Greek word for knew here as well is ginosko: to know by experience. The people to whom Paul referred knew God experientially but refused to glorify Him as God (Rom. 1:21). Paul continues: "Therefore God gave them over" (Rom. 1:24; cf. Rom. 1:26, 28). God did not abandon those people by decree prior to their rejection of Him, however.

In Scripture, God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:3; Heb. 6:18), has promised through the gospel to save those who will believe (1 Cor. 1:21; Heb. 7:25). This has always been God's plan. God commissioned Israel and His Messiah, Jesus His Son, to be covenant mediators for all people and a light to the Gentiles, in order to "open blind eyes, to release prisoners from dungeons, those who live in darkness from prisons" (Isaiah 42:6-7 NET Bible). God elected Israel to be the vessel through whom He would display His glory or splendor (Isaiah 49:3). Israel was to be a light for the Gentiles, to bring salvation "to the remote regions of the earth" (Isaiah 49:6 NET Bible). And though Israel failed, Israel's Messiah, the Lord Jesus, triumphed.

Jesus was born the Messiah, Hope of the Gentiles, Immanuel (God with us). He was to save His Jewish people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). Also, He was sent first to the Jewish people, the elect of God (Matt. 15:24). But His ministry and bodily sacrifice (and resurrection from the dead for that matter) was meant for the benefit of Gentiles as well. John the baptizer exclaimed: Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Salvation has been promised to those who will continue to believe in Christ Jesus, for God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world would be saved through Him (John 3:16-17; cf. John 12:47; 1 Tim. 1:15). What is the result? John states: "The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God . . . The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects [or does not obey] the Son will not see life, but God's wrath remains on him" (John 3:18, 36 NET Bible).

God's salvation, offered to the world, brings Him glory and splendor. God elected Israel to be the vehicle through whom He would bring forth the Messiah ~ the Savior of the world (cf. John 4:42, 12:47; 1 Tim. 1:15, 4:10; 1 John 4:14). He confessed as much when He stated: "You are my servant, Israel, through whom I will reveal my splendor" (Isaiah 49:3 NET Bible). That this is also a veiled reference to the Messiah (Jesus Christ) is evident from Isaiah 49:5. Hence God's purpose was to offer salvation to anyone who would, by His grace, believe on Jesus Christ. And for this He will be glorified.

At this point a person might question the genuine nature of God's offer of salvation to anyone who would trust Jesus Christ if He has from eternity past already predetermined to unconditionally elect only certain ones unto faith and salvation. Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell write:

Still, the question persists: can God's offer of salvation to all people be genuine if he unconditionally elects some and not others to salvation? Piper himself poses the question thus: "Is it made with real heart? Does it come from real compassion? Is the willing that none should perish [2 Peter 3:9] a bona fide willing of love?"⁴

Piper is an advocate of the two-wills theory, whereby God wills deterministically all things, including the idea that only the unconditionally elected via divine fiat will come to faith and salvation, but He also wills (i.e. wishes) that none be lost. The latter will is subservient to the former, leaving the latter will not a will at all (at least, not if words have any real meaning). Calvinists balk: But if we take the Arminian route, then it is up to the sinner if any are eventually saved. Again, Walls and Dongell offer:

So where does the difference lie, according to Piper? Arminains, he says, value what we have called libertarian human freedom and the relationships this makes possible more than they value the salvation of all people. If God cannot save all persons without overriding freedom, it is better for all not to be saved. Calvinists give a different answer. In their view, "the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God's glory in wrath and mercy (Rom. 9:22-23) and the humbling of man so that he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Cor. 1:29)." The idea here, it seems, is that God's full glory is not manifested unless his wrath is displayed, so some persons must be eternally damned for their sins in order for humanity to be properly humbled and give God the glory he deserves. This idea goes back at least to Calvin, who wrote that the reprobate "have been given over to this depravity because they have been raised up by the just but inscrutable judgment of God to show forth his glory in their condemnation." This reality produces two wills in God. At one level, he desires to save all; at another, his will to save all is restrained by his desire to manifest his full glory.⁵

We have already established that it is salvation which brings God glory, not unconditional reprobation, per se. The faulty Calvinistic view that God must have eternally decreed to damn most human beings in order to be glorified in His wrath portrays a distorted view of God with a God-complex, in my opinion. True, Scripture admits that God is willing to display wrath (Rom. 9:22). But according to John 3:36, He does so because of the sinner's obstinacy in obeying or believing in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, not in the effort to bring Himself glory. I find it difficult to imagine, given what God has revealed about Himself in Scripture, that the Godhead in eternity past thought it best to create mortals for the purpose of displaying His grace and wrath. Granted, this is a supralapsarian view of creation and of the decrees. But even ceding the infralapsarian view, God is neither loving nor genuine in His offer of salvation to the non-elect (those whom He has eternally elected unto hell). For love is the laying down of one's life for another (John 15:13; cf. Rom. 5:6, 8, 10), and a genuine offer of salvation is adverse to unconditional election. How, then, can the doctrines of Calvinism bring God any glory whatsoever?

Therefore, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, exhaustive determinism and the supra- and infralapsarian theories betray not only a prima facie reading of the whole tenor of Scripture, but lead the student of Scripture to not trust in the promises and faithfulness of the Triune God. For if God cannot be trusted in offering salvation to the world by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (while secretly cognizant of His decree to unconditionally elect unto salvation only some people), then how can He be trusted with any other statement He has ever uttered? The logic is quite sound. Simply put, our modus ponens holds:

If Jesus Christ is de facto the Savior of the world, then Calvinism is decidedly and unmistakably false.

Jesus Christ is de facto the Savior of the world (John 4:42; 1 Tim. 4:10).

Therefore, Calvinism is decidedly and unmistakably false.

Modus ponens (or affirming the antecedent) states the minor premise will say that the "if" statement is not just speculative but is a present reality. According to Scripture, Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world (John 4:42; 1 Tim. 4:10). If the "if" premise is true, then the "then" proposition must result, forming a true conclusion (If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q). The point of contention for many Calvinists revolves around the definition of world. Granted, there are places in the New Testament where world does not refer to every single individual (e.g. John 12:19). However, contextually, "world" has never held the definition of "elect," as some Calvinists have erroneously imagined. As a matter of fact, Terry L. Miethe recognizes some Calvinists who maintain that

the word world "really means the world of the elect, the world of believers, the church, . . ."

Again, this is an important assertion. The question is Where does the burden of proof lie? Douty mentions the following works: Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament, Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, Robinson's A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Souter's Pocket Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Arndt-Gingrich's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Hasting's Bible Dictionary and Dictionary of the Apostolic church, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Tasker's New Bible Dictionary, Everett F. Harrison in Baker's Dictionary of Theology, and John D. Davis in his Dictionary of the Bible (both Harrison and Davis list John 3:16 as referring to mankind, though both are Presbyterians). Then Douty says,

"But amid all the divisions and sub-divisions listed, the word [for world] is never said to denote 'the elect.' These lexicons know nothing of such a use of kosmos [world] in the New Testament, under which to tabulate John 1:29; 3:16-18; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 12:47; 14:31; 16:8-11; 17:21, 23; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:2; 4:14."

Douty goes on to say:

"All of this is disastrous for the advocates of Limited Atonement. They have ventured to set themselves above the combined scholarship of our lexicons, encyclopedias and dictionaries, when they have ascribed a further signification to the word kosmos, which will support their theological system."⁶

Jesus commanded His followers to go into "all the world" to preach the gospel (Mark 16:15). Why must we do so? The apostle Paul answers that question: "How are they to call on one they have not believed in? And how are they to believe in one they have not heard of? And how are they to hear without someone preaching to them? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? . . . Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ" (Rom. 10:14-15, 17 NET Bible). A person cannot have faith in Christ Jesus unless the gospel is preached. Contrast that scriptural teaching with the false theology of the Calvinist Reformation Study Bible, edited by R. C. Sproul: "Infants can be born again, although the faith that they exercise cannot be as visible as that of adults. For many Christians, the moment that they were born again is clearly known; but for others, it may not be, especially if they received new life in childhood."⁷ Teaching doctrine which explicitly undermines the clear Word of God does not bring Him glory, nor does it lead students of Scripture to trust in the LORD or His Word.

Finally, that God is sovereign is rarely debated among Christians. The manner in which some define sovereign, however, has given place to conflict among Calvinists and non-Calvinists. For Calvinists to suggest that God's sovereignty is exhaustive, i.e. that He "influences the desires and decisions of people,"⁸ is stronger than many are willing to concede. Why is this so? Because Scripture teaches contrary to that conception.

That God governs His universe is maintained by Arminius and Classical Reformed Arminians today. That God influences the desires and decisions which all people make is outright denied because the Bible does not teach such a notion. As a matter of fact, Scripture indicates that people do things contrary to God's plan, desire, and will. For example, The LORD spoke to Jeremiah concerning the evil that His people were committing. He says to the prophet: "Tell them everything I command you to tell them. Don't leave out a single word! Maybe they will pay heed and each of them will stop living the evil way they do" (Jer. 26:2-3 NET Bible). But if God is influencing the desires and decisions of all people, as Calvinists insist, then why is God upset at people for doing that which He has influenced them to do?

Again, the prophet Isaiah recorded God's concern over His vineyard, Israel. God asks: "What more can I do for my vineyard beyond what I have already done? When I waited for it to produce edible grapes, why did it produce sour ones instead?" (Isaiah 5:4 NET Bible) Clearly, God expected a different outcome from that which actually came to pass (though He foreknew that outcome from eternity past). God also said: "'The rebellious children are as good as dead,' says the LORD, 'those who make plans without consulting me, who form alliances without consulting my Spirit, and thereby compound their sin'" (Isaiah 30:1 NET Bible). But if God is influencing the desires and decisions of people, as Calvinists insist, then why is God upset at people for doing that which He has influenced them to do?

What Calvinism leaves us with is a God who is conflicted about those things which He Himself brings about. He is grieving over the wickedness of people ~ the very wickedness which He Himself brings about by His exhaustive, deterministic, sovereign will. Any reasonable person without a Calvinistic hermeneutic or set of presuppositions, which must be maintained and defended, can study Scripture and conclude that God does in fact allow humanity a genuine sense of freedom to do those things which are contrary to His wishes and His holy nature. And He can allow for such and remain sovereign. For example, God admitted that Israel cried out to Him, "My God, we acknowledge you!" But Israel had rejected that which is morally good (Hosea 8:2). How did Israel do so? God said: "They enthroned kings without my consent! They appointed princes without my approval!" (Hosea 8:4 NET Bible) And yet God remained sovereign. The Israelites performed acts such as appointing kings and princes, and did so without God's approval or consent; God was not involved. And yet God remained sovereign. That is because God does not have to control and manipulate people in order to be sovereign.

However, if by sovereign one means that God must control the decisions and desires of all people (a concept which is contrary to what is taught in Scripture), then indeed God is a conflicted Being: complaining against all the evil and wickedness and sorrow that He Himself brings to pass. Thankfully, that is not the God of holy Scripture. That view does anything but bring God glory.

The second of three main reasons why orthodox Christians should abandon Calvinism is because its doctrines do not bring glory to God, but only cast suspicion on His secret motives, intentions, and will, and tarnishes His holy character and nature. God cannot be genuine in His offer of salvation toward those whom He has eternally determined by decree not to save. If Jesus Christ is proclaimed in Scripture to be the Savior of the world in any genuine sense of the phrase, then Calvinism is patently false. And if God's sovereignty does not entail the control or manipulation of the decisions of all people, then Calvinism must be rejected outright.

1 James Strong, The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), 542.

2 Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956), 155.

3 Ibid., 118.

4 Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I am not a Calvinist (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 175.

5 Ibid., 174-75.

6 Terry L. Miethe, "The Universal Power of the Atonement," in The Grace of God and the Will of Man, ed. Clark Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), 77-78.

7 Reformation Study Bible, ed. R. C. Sproul (Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2005), 1514.

8 Wayne A. Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teaching of the Christian Faith, ed. Jeff Purswell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 146.

THREE REASONS WHY CALVINISM SHOULD BE REJECTED: 1) HISTORICAL VERITY BELONGS TO ARMINIANISM

Given the increasing popularity of Calvinism among a younger generation of believers, very few of them actually pause to consider whether the system should be adopted. Instead, young believers are caught up in a trend, being carried along by the strong current of popular and charismatic leaders in the Calvinist resurgence such as John Piper, Mark Driscoll, C. J. Mahaney, Mark Dever and John MacArthur. They are taught that only Calvinism exalts a sovereign God, and that Arminianism was universally condemned in the history of the church. Both claims are patently false.

Let me offer all Christians of all ages three basic reasons why they should reject Calvinism as a viable option for their systematic theology: 1) historical early church testimony was undeniably Arminian in nature, not Calvinistic; 2) Calvinism fails its goal to bring God glory through its core doctrines (emphases upon unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace, to say nothing of exhaustive determinism and the supra- and infralapsarian schemes); and most important 3) Calvinism is merely an exercise in scriptural proof-texting: it is a presuppositional system in search of biblical warrant (whereas Arminianism is a more objective and exegetical theology, though not infallible).

1. HISTORICAL WITNESS OF THE EARLY CHURCH

Dr. Kenneth D. Keathley, Professor of Theology and New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a Molinist Calvinist, acknowledges: "What is called Arminianism was nearly the universal view of the early church fathers and has always been the position of Greek Orthodoxy."¹ When we use the terms Arminianism and Calvinism referring to the early church, we do so anachronistically, realizing that those terms belong directly to sixteenth- and seventeenth-century theologians James Arminius and John Calvin respectively. Hence there were no such doctrines as Arminianism or Calvinism in the early church.

What we do find in the early church, however, are core tenets of later Arminian thought present in the theology of early church fathers. Prior to Augustine (354-430 CE), the founder of Roman Catholicism (according to B. B. Warfield²), whose doctrines bred Augustinianism, which later bred Calvinism, early church fathers were Arminian in essence, soteriologically speaking. Again, Keathley states: "Calvin continued the Augustinian tradition that began when Augustine opposed the Pelagian heresy of the fifth century."³ Eugene Teselle, Professor of Church History and Theology at Vanderbilt Divinity School, admits: "Calvin . . . made much use of Augustine's writings in thinking about predestination, grace, the unity of OT and NT, the church, and the sacraments. . . ."⁴ Augustine's influence cannot be overstated. When one considers the origins of Calvinism, one need look no further than the teachings and influence of Augustine of Hippo himself. We find Calvinism's roots in Augustinianism, not the apostle Paul, as is assumed by some.

Something needs to be acknowledged at this point. Just because one finds one's doctrines held to in the history of the church is not an inherent indicator of its orthodoxy. Ultimately, Scripture alone dictates what doctrines are or are not orthodox. How one interprets Scripture, however, is another matter altogether. And placing one's finger on the pulse of early church fathers in an effort to detect a universal and unified systematic theology is near to impossible. Church historian Robert Louis Wilken states:

The intellectual effort of the early church was at the service of a much loftier goal than giving conceptual form to Christian belief. Its mission was to win the hearts and minds of men and women and to change their lives . . . Christian thinkers were not in the business of establishing something; their task was to understand and explain something."⁵

One does not find a vast array of theologians in the first and second century of the church, strictly speaking. What one finds are early church apologists such as Justin Martyr (100-165 CE), whose concentrated efforts were steeped in contending earnestly "for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 1:3 NET Bible).⁶

We are, however, not left in the dark concerning early church doctrine on salvation. Here is where we find the essence of Arminian thought. And here also is where the void of Calvinistic thought is overwhelmingly obvious. On the contrary, one would not come to that conclusion having read Calvinists such as revisionist Loraine Boettner, who wrote:

The great majority of the creeds of historic Christendom have set forth the doctrines of Election, Predestination, and final Perseverance, as will readily be seen by any one who will make even a cursory study of the subject. On the other hand Arminianism existed for centuries only as a heresy on the outskirts of true religion, and in fact it was not championed by an organized Christian church until the year 1784, at which time it was incorporated into the system of doctrine of the Methodist Church in England.⁷

From Boettner's revisionist study of church history, a Calvinistic understanding of salvation has been around since the beginning of the church, and an Arminian understanding was not established until 1784. Whatever happened to objective historical studies? The only way to maintain any semblance of truth in Boettner's statement is to rewrite church history!

Pre-Augustinian church fathers taught an Arminian understanding of salvation because that it was they believed Scripture taught. It was Augustine who deviated from the consensus of the fathers concerning salvation (hence Calvinism is a deviation of early chuch theological consensus on salvation). Boettner, being caught in an inconsistency, even alluded to the same thing when he wrote: "This cardinal truth of Christianity [unconditional election unto salvation for some] was first clearly seen by Augustine. . . ." If it was "first clearly seen" by Augustine, then how do we account for the first three hundred years of church fathers who did not "clearly see" an Augustinian (and later Calvinistic) understanding of unconditional election ~ a "cardinal truth of Christianity" ~ taught in Scripture? Consider the following statements by the fathers prior to Augustine ~ statements with which no Calvinist could ever agree:

Hermas (150 CE) wrote: "To those whose heart He saw would become pure and obedient to Him, He gave the power to repent with the whole heart [election based on foreknowledge]."

Justin Martyr (160 CE) wrote: "Lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever occurs happens by a fatal necessity [a denial of exhaustive determinism], because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain . . . And again, unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions."

Tatian (160 CE) wrote: "We were not created to die [a denial of supralapsarianism]. Rather, we die by our own fault. Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it."

Melito (170 CE) wrote: "There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner of life, because you are a free man."

Irenaeus (180 CE) wrote: "But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect similar to God, having been made free in his will [classical Arminian thought], and with power over himself, is himself his own cause that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff."

Clement of Alexandria (195 CE) wrote: "God ministers eternal salvation to those who cooperate for the attainment of knowledge and good conduct. Since what the commandments direct are in our own power, along with the performance of them, the promise is accomplished . . . Therefore, all having been called, those who are willing to obey have been named 'the called.' For there is no unrighteousness with God . . . To these, prophecy says, 'If you are willing and hear me, you will eat the good things of the land,' proving that choice or refusal depends on ourselves . . We . . . have believed and are saved by voluntary choice."
Tertullian (207 CE) wrote: "I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power . . . For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will . . . Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance" [a denial of irresistible grace].

Origen (225 CE) wrote: "The apostle in one place does not purport that becoming a vessel to honor or dishonor depends upon God [Rom. 9:21-22; a blatant rejection of Calvinistic thought]. Rather, he refers everything back to ourselves, saying, 'If, then, a man purges himself, he will be a vessel to honor, sanctified, fit for the Master's use, and prepared for every good work' [2 Tim. 2:20-21]."

Hippolytus (225 CE) wrote: "The Word promulgated the divine commandments by declaring them. He thereby turned man from disobedience. He summoned man to liberty through a choice involving spontaneity ~ not by bringing him into servitude by force of necessity [rejection of irresistible grace]."
Cyprian (250 CE) wrote: "The liberty of believing or of not believing is placed in free choice."

Methodius (290 CE) wrote, "God is good and wise. He does what is best. Therefore, there is no fixed destiny" [a denial of unconditional election].

Lactantius (304-313 CE), during those years, wrote: "He who gives commandments for life should remove every method of excuse ~ so He can impose upon men the necessity of obedience. Not by any constraint, but by a sense of shame. Yet, He should do it in a way to leave them freedom, so that a reward may be appointed for those who obey. That is because it was in their power not to obey ~ for it was in their power to obey if they wished."

The Disputation of Archelaus and Manes (320 CE) reads: "Rational creatures have been entrusted with free will. Because of this, they are capable of converting" [a thought made also by Charles Finney].
Alexander of Alexandria (324 CE) wrote: "Natural will is the free faculty of every intelligent nature, as having nothing involuntary pertaining to its essence."⁸

A "cursory reading" from church history, as revisionist-Calvinist Loraine Boettner instructed us to take, evinces an Arminian and not a Calvinistic understanding of God's grace, free will, election and predestination, as well as synergism vs. monergism. Arminians do not have to rewrite church history in order to demonstrate that we stand in line with and are firmly rooted in the orthodoxy of the early church fathers, as do some Calvinists (i.e. Boettner). We simply need to show others the words of the fathers themselves. And while Scripture alone will always dictate what a Christian should believe, it is obvious from early church history (the first three centuries) that nothing resembling Calvinism was thought to be biblical.

The first of three main reasons why orthodox Christians should abandon Calvinism is because its core doctrines (emphases upon unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace, to say nothing of exhaustive determinism and the supra- and infralapsarian schemes) were not taught in the early church prior to fourth- and fifth-century theologian Augustine of Hippo. Calvin and modern-day Calvinists stand historically in a long tradition, not of early church fathers, but of the aberrant doctrines of Augustine, whose errors include the subjective and dangerous allegorical hermeneutic, the heresy of baptismal regeneration (and even necessary for the salvation of infants), the false idea that martyrdom could replace baptism, the apostolic succession of bishops, beginning with Peter, the heresy of the sinlessness of Mary, the false teaching of the intercession of dead saints and adoration of relics, the false teaching of purgatory, the idea that the worst sin behind the fallen human condition is sexual intercourse, and was considered by him to be sinful unless used solely for procreation, the allowance of polygamy, if it was solely for propagation, and the heresy that God's grace is distributed through the sacraments.⁹

While I do not think that Calvinism should be rejected solely because of Augustine's many theological errors, not related to the doctrine of soteriology, certainly his authority and credibility is hampered by those many errors. I no more consider him an authority on orthodox Christian teaching than I do Origen.

Why do men such as Piper, Sproul, MacArthur et al. advocate a Calvinistic theology? Clearly, they do so because they believe the Bible teaches a Calvinistic theology. At the same time, rarely does anyone mine Calvinism from a prima facie reading of Scripture: a Calvinistic presupposition must first be in place before anyone can derive that system from the pages of the Bible.

But do not miss the overarching point of this post. Prior to the teaching and influence of Augustine in the fourth and fifth century, early church fathers did not teach any semblance of a neoPlatonic-Augustinian (to borrow B. B. Warfield's admission of Augustine's theology¹⁰), and later Calvinistic, philosophically-theological construct. Historical verity belongs to Arminianism.

1 Kenneth D. Keathley, "The Work of God: Salvation," in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007), 703.

2 B. B. Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1956), 313.

3 Ibid.

4 Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, ed. Donald K. McKim (Louisville, KY: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1992), 18.

5 Robert Louis Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), xiv, 3.

6 Ibid., 4-7.

7 Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1932), 2.

8 A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, ed. David W. Bercot (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998), 285-86, 288, 292-95.

9 Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola: Vance Publications, 2002), 55.

10 B. B. Warfield, 319.