95% Arminian

Yesterday, I heard of yet another major Christian intellectual claiming to be a Calvinist yet who rejected limited atonement.

If you reject limited atonement, then there is a good chance you are 95% Arminian and are either afraid to admit it (due to the calumny imposed by Calvinists) or don't know enough about Arminianism to do so.

If you reject limited atonement, then what quarrel do you have with Arminianism? As one of my previous post indicates (Are You an Arminian?), you can be an Arminian and still believe in Total Depravity and even eternal security.

John MacArthur recently made the comment that Wesley was a messed up Calvinist (http://arminians.org/node/365). By this, MacArthur admits that Wesley was not semi-Pelagian, and that he is far more Reformed than not. Actually, this is why I call myself a Reformation Arminian. I accept penal satisfaction, total depravity, and that a person cannot come to Christ apart from the special work of the drawing of the Holy Spirit.

If you reject limited atonement, why not compare your beliefs to that of Reformation Arminians? Chances are, you are one of us.

Matt 1:21: How Calvinists Blind-side a Text

He Will Save His People from Their Sins:
How Calvinists Don’t Bother Looking from the Other Side



One of the more inane prooftexts for Calvinism is Matt 1:21, “…for he will save his people from their sins.” Calvinists argue that this is a statement of definiteness, that it does not say that Jesus will merely provide the opportunity of salvation for “his people,” but instead, that Jesus will definitely save his people. They claim that this flies in the face of Arminian assertions that through Jesus, God provides a way for everyone to be saved.

The quick Arminian retort is simple: “What!? Do you Calvinists think that Arminians deny that Jesus will definitely save his people??? Of course, we Arminians affirm that Jesus will definitely save his people, just as the text says.”

The claim that this is a Calvinist proof text for definite atonement registers 9.8 on the silly scale.

The ultimate question is a matter of defining “his people.” Indeed, in Matthew’s Gospel, the issue which is pounded is whether “his people” consists of Abraham’s descendents only, or whether “his people” is actually the community of faith, consisting of both Jew and Gentile believers; obviously, Matthew favours the latter position.

This is instructive for us. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus saves his people, and his people are his true disciples—those who do the will of his Father in heaven. Matthew does not define “his people” in terms of a murky Calvinistic election as birthed in the dark secret counsels of God, but rather in very concrete terms of taking up ones cross and following Jesus. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus saves his people from their sins, but “his people” consists of his true brothers and sisters and mother—those who do the will of his Father in heaven (12:46-50).

So, Arminians do indeed believe that Jesus will definitely save every single one of his people. This does not prevent them from also affirming that Jesus died for everyone. Indeed, one gets the strong impression in every passage of Matthew’s Gospel, that Jesus preached to everyone, urging them to repent and believe the Gospel, even those whom he knew would reject him. After all, Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees precisely because they would ultimately reject him, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem…, how often I have longed to gather your children…but you were not willing” (Matt 23:37).

Are You an Arminian?

Over the centuries, Calvinists have so successfully vilified Arminianism that people who are Arminian are afraid to say so. This is true even though Arminianism is the default theological position of Christian Protestantism. Arminianism is so widespread that even the strongest Calvinist churches are filled with Arminians. It is ironic, then, that people are afraid to say they’re Arminian; for example, many Independent and Southern Baptists are typically Arminian, but nonetheless often call themselves Calvinists!

The purpose of this survey is to help people who have an Arminian theology realise that they are Arminians and to help them understand that it is okay to be Arminian. The questions deal with the most pertinent issues which define Arminianism and distinguish Arminianism from Calvinism.


1. Do you believe that Jesus died for every human being?
• This is the singular issue which ultimately divides Calvinism and Arminianism
• If you answered yes to the question, then almost certainly you are an Arminian (assuming that you hold to other historic doctrines and are a Protestant)
• If you believe that Jesus died only for those who would eventually believe, then you truly are a Calvinist and are not an Arminian

2. Do you believe that a person can resist the convicting power of God’s grace?
• If you answered yes, then you are almost certainly an Arminian, as is reflected in Jesus’ words, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often I have longed to gather your children together…but you were not willing” (Matt 23:37)
• Calvinists insist that when God calls people to salvation, they have no ability to resist, and therefore conclude that God’s invitation to salvation goes out only to the few

3. Do you believe that humans are so depraved that they can do nothing to earn salvation and that they cannot choose to believe in Jesus without the intervention of God’s grace?
• If you answered yes, then you agree with Arminius and Arminianism
• Calvinists affirm the same doctrine, but often claim that Arminians do not, despite near, if not complete unanimity among Arminian theologians in affirming the doctrine

4. Do you believe in election?
• If you answered yes, then you might be an Arminian
• Calvinists believe in an election independent of faith
• Arminians believe that election is “in Christ;” i.e., anyone who is “in Christ” is elect, but that faith is essential to become united with Christ. Therefore, election is conditioned upon faith

5. Do you believe in predestination?
• If you answered yes, then you might be an Arminian
• Arminians assert that believers are predestined, not that people are predestined to believe

6. Do you believe in eternal security?
• If you answered yes, you might be an Arminian
• The Remonstrants—people who sided with Arminius in the theological debates of 17th century Holland—took no position on this issue
• Arminius’ position has often been said to be non-committal, although rumours of recently discovered unpublished “disputations” may suggest that he did embrace the possibility of the believer losing his salvation
• If you answered no, then you probably are an Arminian
• The official statement of faith of the Society of Evangelical Arminians does not require the belief in the possibility of the believer losing his salvation
• All Calvinists believe in unconditional eternal security
• Most Independent and Southern Baptists base their claim to be Calvinists on this sole issue; however, in light of historic agreement among Arminians to allow for disagreement on this issue, eternal security is not a determining factor in the question of whether one is an Arminian or a Calvinist

7. Do you believe in penal satisfaction view of the atonement?
• If you answered yes and if you answered no, you might be an Arminian
• The penal satisfaction view of the atonement asserts that Jesus’ death entailed a payment for sin. It assumes that the justice of God requires that sin be punished and that the just wrath of God was diverted away from deserving sinners and poured out instead upon Jesus as their substitute
• This view is held by most Calvinists and by a significant number of Arminians (especially those who claim the nomenclature “Reformation Arminianism”), although some Arminians reject the notion that God punished his Son Jesus

8. Do you believe that God exhaustively knows the future?
• If you answered yes, you might be an Arminian
• Calvinists and most Arminians believe that God exhaustively knows the future.
• Some Arminians think that a denial of this doctrine is a rejection of basic Theism, and that those who deny the doctrine cannot therefore be Arminian
• The Society of Evangelical Arminianism affirms the doctrine, and one cannot belong to the society unless one is in agreement with it

9. Do you believe in the sovereignty of God?
• If you answered yes, then you might be an Arminian
• All Calvinists and all Arminians affirm the sovereignty of God
• Some Calvinists define sovereignty as God ordaining all things, so that they openly deny any choice or ability of people in regard to any action; this is a denial of libertarian free will and raises the question of human culpability when they choose to sin
• Arminians affirm libertarian free will and that humans really do make genuine choices, undeniably affirming human culpability when they choose to sin
• The Arminian view of Sovereignty is that God is sovereign enough to endow his creatures with free will


In summary, you can be an Arminian and believe
• the doctrine of unlimited atonement (Jesus died for everyone)
• the doctrine of resistible grace (people have the power to resist God’s convicting grace)
• the doctrine of total depravity (people are incapable of believing in Jesus apart from the intervention of God’s grace)
• the doctrine of election (all those who are “in Christ” are elect)
• the doctrine of predestination (believers are predestined)
• the doctrine of eternal security
• the doctrine of the penal satisfaction atonement (God punished Jesus for the sins of the world)
• the doctrine of omniscience (including that God foreknows the future perfectly)
• the sovereignty of God (God endowed humans with a free will)


As I stated earlier, the default position of Christian evangelicalism is Arminianism. And as can be seen in this brief outline, it is okay to be Arminian.

For more reflection on these issues, read Roger Olson’s 10 Myths about Arminianism

Evangelical Theological Society's Proposed Doctrinal Statement

ETS has basically two points that members must affirm: the Trinity and inerrancy. These are hardly enough to distinguish evangelical Christians from non-Evangelicals, prompting some people to urge a new statement of faith, which can be found here. Here are my thoughts....

FIRST, It seems that the proposed change is doomed to fail because 1) the executive committee opposes it; and 2) a super-supermajority of 80% is needed to pass it; 3) there were few big names on their list of supporters--I recognised only seven.

SECOND, let's talk about item 9 which reads, "The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners, enabling them to turn to God from their sin and to trust in Jesus Christ."

The afore-linked webpage includes as one of its FAQ's a question in regard to C-A issues. The FAQ reads: "9. Is the reference to the Holy Spirit’s enabling work slanted towards Calvinism?" They reply, "We believe the statement on the Holy Spirit’s work in regeneration can accommodate the Calvinist view as well as Wesleyan/ Arminian notions of prevenient grace. Because the statement already unites Calvinist, Wesleyan, and Arminian evangelicals in England, we think that we have good reason not to interpret it as slanted towards either Calvinism or Arminianism. We have corresponded with at least one non-Calvinist long time member of the Tyndale Fellowship who has said he has never had a problem with this description of the Holy Spirit’s work."

Actually, upon a very, very close reading of the item, I have encountered a problem with this item. The participial phrase (enabling them to turn...and to trust) is ambiguous, and--as with all modifying participles, we are unsure of it being causal, temporal, sequential, etc. Here are the possibilities

• temporal: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners at the same time that he enables them to turn to God from their sin....
• telic: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners for the purpose of enabling them to turn to God from their sin...
• causal: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners because he enables them to turn to God from their sin...
• instrumental: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners by enabling them to turn to God from their sin...
• circumstantial: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners while he enables them to turn to God from their sin...
• sequential: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners then he enables them to turn to God from their sin...
• resultative: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners resulting in them being enabled them to turn to God from their sin...

No doubt, English is much less ambiguous with its participles than Greek, and one or two or three of these possibilities is more probable than others.

However, after staring at these options for the last 30 minutes, I'm not sure which reading is more natural. One thing I'm sure of is that Arminians won't like some of them. For example we would reject the telic, sequential, and resultative interpretations. If pressed, Arminians would interpret the phrase instrumentally: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners by enabling them to turn to God from their sin....

Perhaps the ambiguity is deliberate and helpful, enabling both Calvinists and Arminians to interpret it in whatever way they wish.

THIRD, perhaps of equal interest is the item which reads, "The Holy Spirit lives in all those he has regenerated...." Hey, this is good for Arminians, but bad for some Calvinists. I would assume that this might make a few Calvinists twinge, especially those who think that there can be some time gap from the point of regeneration to the point of faith. I keep on hearing Calvinists claiming this insanity that a person may not actually believe until years after his regeneration. Calvinists who believe this insanity are faced then with accepting the notion not only that unbelievers can be regenerate, but that unbelievers can be indwelt by the Spirit. This being the case, perhaps we ought to adopt the amendment, and then go on a witch hunt to throw out a bunch of Calvinists from ETS. :)

Rethinking Hymnody: "In Christ Alone"

We should re-write hymns which distort doctrines toward a Calvinist
slant. I think it's perfectly legal to do so, although I think you're
supposed to cite the hymn title with "alt." or "adpt." afterward,
which stand for altered or adapted, respectively.

For example: "In Christ Alone" (alt.)

Here's one version of a verse of "In Christ Alone" which alters the
one-sided emphasis on eternal security and determinism. The original
reads:

No guilt in life, no fear in death—
This is the pow'r of Christ in me;
From life's first cry to final breath;
Jesus commands my destiny.
No pow'r of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand,
Producing fruit in Christ the Vine,
Faithfully for my Christ I’ll stand.

The obviously offensive lines are "Jesus commands my destiny" and the
reference to the impossibility of being plucked out of Christ's hand.
Of course, with caveats, Arminians can affirm them. But why sing
songs which might confuse people unnecessarily?

The altered version reads:

No guilt in life, no fear in death—
This is the pow'r of Christ in me;
From life's first cry to final breath,
Jesus, Command my destiny!
No pow'r of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand,
Producing fruit in Christ the Vine,
Faithfully for my Christ I’ll stand.

The alteration about a deterministic destination is subtle. It
converts an indicative statement to an prayer of commitment. It does
so first by converting the previous semi-colon after "From life's
first cry to final breath" into a comma. Then, the utterance of
Jesus' name is converted into a vocative (as indicated by the comma
immediately after his name). Next, in good form befitting the
vocative, the first word Command is capitalised, and the final
punctuation converted to an exclamation point. Thus, the worshiper
emotively thrusts his life into Christ's control.

My resolution to the John 10 passage about plucking is to recognise
that Jesus publicly tells his opponents that no one can pluck his
sheep out of his hand, but that Jesus, in the intimacy of private
teaching, tells his disciples that if they don't continue in abiding
with him and bearing fruit, they will be cut off from the vine. The
alteration of the hymn has this in mind.

To be sure, nothing can pluck out of Jesus' hand those who abide in
Christ and produce fruit. This is reflected by the participle
"producing." The idea here is that producing is assumptive: the
promise of security is only for those who faithfully stand in Christ.

I wonder if anyone else might suggest a different alteration.

Recovering a Sense of Incredulity over Calvinism

I have a couple friends of mine who are preparing for ministry and working on advanced theological degrees. However, in their prior studies they had been quite insulated from the Calvinist-Arminian debate, and have only recently encountered real live Calvinists. It is refreshing to hear their sense of incredulity and even shock at what Calvinists say.

I remember one of my first conversations with one of them. As it came up that I was not a Calvinist, he replied, "But there aren't any Calvinists around any more, are there?" I looked around at the various other theologians in the room and said, "We're surrounded by them." This came as a shock, since he simply could not conceive how anyone could hold to Calvinism.

In another conversation, my other friend said, after talking to a Calvinists, "You know, they actually believe that Jesus only died for the elect." I replied, "But of course." To which he responded that he knew this was a part of their theology, but couldn't conceive of anyone actually believing that God would withhold the atonement from the greatest part of mankind.

Another time, one of them said to me, "Do you realize that they think that we Arminians believe in a works salvation?"

All this is refreshingly assuring. These young men, well educated in theology as they are, nonetheless have a theological innocence about them untainted by the intricacies of a Calvinism which obfuscates the obvious and creates theosophical labyrinths from one's nose to one's elbow.
Oh to be shocked once more at hearing someone claim that God predestines some few people to believe, and leaves all others with no means of salvation! Oh to be astonished to hear someone claim that babies who die in infancy have no assurance of being ushered into the delights of heaven! Oh to be flabbergasted to hear someone claim that people have no choice in whether they put their faith in Christ or not.

We hear Calvinists repeat their disturbing theology so much that we gradually lose our proper sense of astonishment over people actually believing things so contrary to the nature of God and to the obvious meaning of Scripture. This is unfortunate. We need to recover a sense of theological innocence so that we do not dignify what is otherwise prima facie absurd.

On one hand, we want people to recognize our theological maturity, and so we make sure we never seem surprised at Calvinistic claims; and rightly so, because we've probably heard most of them more than a few times. But maybe this is a flawed response, for it tends to dignify that which should be not be dignified. Perhaps instead we should respond with an appropriate sense of incredulity at notions which could only be deduced from scripture by those who are twice too clever for the simplicity of the Gospel.

Congregational Approval of Out-of-Budget Expenditures

Here's a procedure....

1) Set up a budget for approval. Any expenditure which has already been approved at the previous annual meeting need not be brought up again for specific approval. If you budget $2000 for church van maintenance and repair, and its transmission needs a $1000 overhaul, then go ahead and get it repaired.

2) Each board or church department should make a good faith effort to stay within its budget. But if a budget item is exceeded through ordinary but unexpected situations, then

• report it at the next business meeting;
• b) explain why;
• c) move on--i.e., don't worry about passing a budget increase;
• d) increase your budget for that particular item next year.

3) Special items not previously budgeted should be carefully considered as to whether or not they should be presented to the congregation for a vote. Here are some criteria:

• The more unusual the item is, the greater the need to bring it to the congregation
• The more expensive the item is, the greater the need to bring it to the congregation
• The more time-sensitive the purchase is, the greater the need for the board to deal with it outside of congregational oversight
• Sometimes difficult situations of a most sensitive nature need to be dealt with in the privacy of the board meeting, for example, a severance package for a dismissed ministerial professional. In which case, the board members stick their neck out and assume that the congregation will trust their judgment. After all, the board members are the supposed to be the most spiritual mature and Spirit-led members of the congregation. Moreover, the board members should carry enough voting weight as to control any future votes on the controversial issue.

All this to say, there must be some flexibility. The principles of congregational governance need to work together with the principles of board representation. The board members function for the purpose of facilitating church governance and should not compete against it.

Ultimately, instead of asking if you should make a rule that congregational approval is necessary for purchases over $500 (or over $5000...), you should leave the exact figure undecided, and allow for prudence according to the situation. You could use some less than precise language to convey this. "If an out-of-budget expenditure of pressing urgency cannot be brought before the congregation in an expedient manner, the board, if the nature of the circumstances deems it necessary, may authorize reasonable disbursements of limited amounts without prior consent of the congregation."

But sometimes things are better left unsaid.