Rapping the Whole Gospel

The Christian rapper Flame must not be your average rapper. I came across the lyrics of one of his songs. It is heavy with theology and is to be commended for being weighty. I suspect that his music must appeal to many younger people.

However, there are some basic problems with it in regard to the Calvinist-Arminian issue. Here are some of the words; a select few are chosen for discussion, as indicated in all-caps.



"who can pluck us?"

See what I'm about to mention some consider secondary
But never weary guarantee it's very necessary
When Jesus hit the wood and she'd His blood on the tree
He did something good He was atoning for me
AND ALL BELIEVERS WE SEE PETER WOULD CALL THE ELECT
And even Jesus said that His sheep could never be snatched
Out of His hands nor the Father cause He's greater than
All and they're one like a married woman and man
So listen up (listen up) I'm bout to make it plain
So you can hear me clearly and sincerely what I'm saying
Through Jesus sacrifice the Father was satisfied (run it back)
Through Jesus sacrifice the Father was satisfied (one more time)
Through Jesus sacrifice the Father was satisfied
Now He gives assurance to all those for whom He died

I'm trying to tell you something you probably have never heard
And if you have you probably perceive them as dirty words
WORDS LIKE ELECTION AND PREDESTINATION
CAN GET YOU STONED AND THROWN OUT OF A CONGREGATION
But there in the Bible we gotta talk ? talk about it (run it back)
But there in the Bible we gotta talk ? talk about it (one more time)
But there in the Bible we gotta talk ? talk about it
We can still love each other and share our thoughts about it
When Jesus died He drank the full cup of God's Wrath
WHEN HE WAS CRUCIFIED IT WAS ON OUR BEHALF
FOR ALL THOSE THE FATHER CHOSE IN ETERNITY PAST
To be redeemed that simply means to be bought back
SO WHEN CHRIST EXPIRED THE DEBT AND THE PRICE WAS PAID
FOR PARTICULAR PEOPLE ON THAT NIGHT TO BE SAVED

In regard to the Calvinist-Arminian issue, I think it is important to debunk the myth that just because I'm an Arminian doesn't mean that I don't affirm election and predestination. The difference is that Arminians don't teach that God elects a few people to believe; neither does the Bible. Rather, we think that all who BELIEVE are elect. Yes, from eternity past, God elected a select group of people to be saved: he elected believers.

In fact, Flame's words here illustrates the Arminian point: "And all believers we see Peter would call the elect." That is to say, if you believe, then you are elect! Flame sounds more Arminian than Calvinist here!

That God predestined the Elect to eternal salvation is good Arminian theology. We just don't believe that God predestined some people to believe or chose some people to believe. Biblical election is entirely centred in Christ: we are ELECT "in Christ," but no one gets "in Christ" unless he first believes. Calvinist err here in centring salvation in a decree back in eternity pass rather than "in Christ."

Flame's lyrics at one point overlooks this important doctrine of "Union with Christ." He writes, "So when Christ expired the debt and the price was paid For particular people on that night to be saved."

However, I am certain that the elect experience not even the first salvific benefit until they are united with Christ through faith. Flame claims in this line that the sin debt of all the elect was expired when Christ died on the cross. This simply isn't true. The sin debt is not expired until a person is united with Christ by faith.

Ironically, if the elect's sin debt was expired when Christ died on the cross, Flame (and many Calvinists) would end up teaching that the elect were born into this world without being guilty of sin, and the elect were born into this world already reconciled with God through Christ, and that the elect were never under wrath. Of course, Calvinists don't believe this, but this seems to be the inevitable conclusion if they strongly assert that atonement for the elect was actually effected on the cross.

To avoid such a heretical conclusion, a good Calvinist (something very rare these days) would say, Christ provided atonement on the cross, but atonement is not effected until a person is united with Christ. But this is exactly what Arminians believe.

Ultimately, sometimes Flame's lyrics unjustly read Calvinism into the biblical texts to which he alludes. Flame writes, "When He was crucified it was on our behalf For all those the Father chose in eternity past." These two lines state that God sent his Son to die (only) for the select few. This is not biblical election. Biblical election only teaches that a select few will be saved; it does not state or imply anything about the extent of the atonement. God could provide atonement for everyone, yet only elect believers.

This song seems to represent yet another means by which Calvinists are getting out their message to young Christians. Let me urge Arminians to counter this by producing good music which focuses on the Good News which is meant for all people. Perhaps someone could write a rap song on the theme, "Not willing that any should perish."

A Message from Arminian Theologian Roger Olson

Prof. Olson writes about theological bullying and blatant misrepresentation of Arminians by present day Calvinists.

Feel free to copy and post this anywhere but only without editing it.
You may and should attach my name to it.

I appreciate and agree with everything Scot McKnight has written in his
blog postings "Who are the NeoReformed?" (See his blog The Jesus
Creed.) He was very judicious about naming names. Namely, naming names
would only inflame the controversy and make things worse. "If the shoe
fits [someone]...."

I would like to add that many contemporary Calvinists who are feeding
the "young, restless and Reformed" the fuel with which they go out and
cause trouble (one of them told me I'm not even saved because I'm an
Arminian!) totally misrepresent Arminianism (to say nothing of other
traditions).

Here is a quote from one Calvinist pastor's sermon on limited atonement:
"The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the
atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who
die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for
all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a
powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible
plight of depravity."

Now, either this well-educated pastor knows little about classical
Arminian theology or he is intentionally mispresenting it. But in the
former case he should have read at least my book Arminian Theology:
Myths and Realities. Because his statement is simply false. It
completely ignores the Arminian emphasis on prevenient grace.

One thing I find appalling but often practiced by the people Scot calls
"NeoReformed" is attributing to others beliefs the others not only do
not hold but explicitly deny. When confronted the NeoReformed say "But
that's the good and necessary consequence of what they do believe."
Then they should say that and also say "But they don't actually believe
that."

So the followers of these highly educated leaders of the NeoReformed
hear them or read them and go out thinking and saying "Arminians believe
people save themselves." That's poppycock and the leaders of the
NeoReformed movement know it.

There's a lot of dishonesty going on in this "Village Green" we call
evangelicalism. And frankly, as I see it, most of it is the result of
NeoReformed people blatantly misrepresenting Arminianism and by that
trying to marginalize Arminians (and Anabapts who basically hold the
same theology). How? By convincing the movers and shakers of the
evangelical movement that Arminianism is dangerously close to heresy.

I cannot read their hearts or minds, so I do not know whether they are
misrepresenting Arminianism intentionally or not. But I am sure they
are educated enough to have checked out their representations of
Arminianism to see if they are correct. Either they haven't done that
or they are intentionally misrepresenting Arminian theology (even if
only by saying only what they think Arminian theology leads to and
neglecting to make clear that is not what Arminians themselves believe).

I've been fighting this battle, to clear the good name of Arminian
theology (by showing how it different from Semi-Pelagianism) for years
now with very limited success. I find that most of the people doing the
misrepresenting of Arminianism and aggressively asserting the sole
theological correctness of Reformed theology (their version of it) have
little or no interest in being educated about real Arminian theology.
Their minds are already made up; don't confuse them with the facts.

Every year I have a group of Calvinist pastors from a local Reformed
church come to my class and speak. One of them started out by saying
"Arminianism is just Pelagianism." After several such unfortunate
encounters I gave them copies of Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
on the condition they read it. To the best of my knowledge they never
have.

I have received e-mails and letters from scores of "young, restless and
Reformed" evangelicals thanking me for clearing up their misconceptions
(which they all say they were taught by leading Reformed evangelicals)
about Arminianism. But I have not heard from a single evangelical
Reformed leader saying that anything I wrote there made any difference
in the way they think or speak or write about Arminian theology.

Without any doubt in my mind, the "Village Green" metaphor for
evangelicalism is not a good one. After all, the Village Green in
England and then New England was simply a place where all the citizens
could come together and talk about the weather or politics or business.
Evangelicalism is a loose coalition of like-minded Christians who
acknowledge their differences. It's motto has always been "In
essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."
(See the National Association of Evangelicals web site.) The
multi-denominational tent revival is a much better metaphor for
evangelicalism.

Lately, however, there's been trouble under the revival tent. Some
folks are trying to convince the organizers and sponsors of the revival
and newcomers as well that their particular theology is an essential and
not a non-essential. They are very careful how they choose their words;
they usually strictly avoid the lable "heresy" for other views such as
Arminianism and even open theism. But their rhetoric is the rhetoric of
exclusion: "Arminianism is profoundly mistaken" and "Arminianism is on
the precipice of heresy" and "all Arminians are on their way to open
theism," etc., etc.

It's time for evangelicalism's leaders to stand up and say no--not to
Calvinism but to those evangelical Calvinists who are causing trouble in
the evangelical camp by blatantly misrepresenting other evangelicals'
beliefs and by implying, if not asserting, that their theology is the
only authentic evangelical theology.

Roger E. Olson

Who Are Free Will Baptists?

Free Will Baptists are an association of independent baptistic church congregations. Their 17th century origins are rooted in the rejection of infant baptism, and affirmation that believers only should be baptized.

The earliest Baptists were Arminian (), although Calvinist Baptists arose soon afterward. Both Calvinist and Arminian Baptists shared some sense of commonality with each other as they were persecuted by the infant baptists.

English Baptists had their origins under the heel of a repressive monarchy which insisted that its subjects submit to the King's religion. Baptist affirmation of soul competency and the indwelling of the Spirit brought them into serious conflict with the crown. Many, many Baptist pastors died in prison.

The theological commitment to soul competency and the indwelling of the Spirit informed and determined the shape of Baptist polity (http://treasuresoldandnewbiblicaltexts.blogspot.com/search/label/Baptist%20Polity). They rejected both bishop rule (episcopalianism) and elder rule (presbyterianism), and embraced congregationalism which divests authority away from the hand of one leader or several leaders into the hands of the congregation. Thus, Baptists choose their own leaders, rather than having them appointed by a higher human authority.

Under these conditions, Baptists migrated to America as early as the 17th century. Roger Williams who started the first Baptist church in the colonies (Providence, R.I.) was supposed to have been an Arminian Baptist, although his church quickly became a staunch Calvinist Baptist soon after his departure. Baptists were delineated along the Calvinist-Arminian controversy, with Calvinists known as Particular Baptists and Arminians known as General Baptists. Denominational names became more specific through the 18th and 19th centuries.

Early Baptists in America typically practiced feet washing as an act of fellowship in the context of worship, as commanded by Jesus. While most Baptists have abandoned this practice in the 20th century, Free Will Baptists have remained true to its Baptist historical roots in obeying this command.

In this early period, two FWB movements were distinguishable. In the north, a well organized denomination traced itself back to the ministry of Benjamin Randall. In the south, loosely organized churches can be traced to the ministry of Paul Palmer.

The Randall movement denominational apparatus facilitated considerable missions activity, theological publication, and hymnody. By 1907, the Randall movement could boast of seven theological colleges and about 1100 churches.

The Randall movement was influenced to some extent by Wesley's theology of continuance in salvation. The emphasis on continual repentance was such that historically, the Randall churches seemed to embrace a salvation of grace through faith, but a continuance in salvation by not sinning; if a believer were to die soon after committing a sin without having repented of it, he would presumably be condemned to hell. In contrast, the Palmer movement affirmed a salvation by grace through faith and continuance in salvation by grace through faith; the only way a person could forfeit his salvation is to make shipwreck of his faith. This description of the Randall view of continuance may be over stated, but at least serves to highlight an ongoing issue within the movement.

The Civil War exacerbated regional and theological differences, keeping the two movements ecclesially distant from each other. In contrast, arising out of the missions movement which needed denominational structure, many Baptist groups were forming closer formal alliances with each other.

In keeping with this trend toward ecclesial unity, from 1907-1911, about 1100 churches in the Randall movement voluntarily associated themselves with the newly formed Northern Baptist denomination. This voluntary merger included nearly every Freewill Baptist church in the north (a few churches in Scioto County Ohio did not vote for the merger, and FWBs in Oklahoma did not merge). The seven affiliated Freewill Baptist colleges also were involved with the merger.

The merger was designed to emphasize missional cooperation and to deemphasize theological differences. The result was the merger of Calvinist and Arminian Baptist churches. Practically speaking, churches typically embraced the Arminian doctrine of the extent of the atonement while embracing the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional continuance in salvation (eternal security). The Northern Baptist denomination later experienced several major splits along conservative-liberal issues, but is now known as American Baptist Churches--USA, consisting of over 5000 churches. Next to the Southern Baptist Convention, it is the second largest Baptist denomination in America.

Meanwhile, the Palmer movement seemed to languish due to a lack of denominational organization. To the extent that the Palmer movement was dependent upon northern Freewill Baptist literature, theological impetus, and cooperative ministry, the merger may have exacerbated this disorientation.

In 1935, FWB leaders came together and chartered the National Association of Free Will Baptists. In 1942, the FWB Bible College was established. In the 1950s, remnant Randall churches from West Virginia and Kentucky established many new FWB churches in OH MI IN and even IL; for example, in 1945, there were less than 10 FWB churches in OH, while 30 years later there were an astounding 150.

These roots in the rural south and hills of Appalachia are, for better or for worse, defining for modern FWBs. Culturally, the typical FWB church 1) is rural; 2) approaches worship without a prescribed liturgy or written prayers; 3) values informal, personal, and conversational worship; 4) eschews high church music; 5) is often dependent upon an uneducated clergy; and 6) has a genuine and natural sense of fellowship which impressively extends beyond the local church to the local association and beyond to various formal and informal networks on a national level.

FWBs have exerted considerable effort in expanding beyond its rural roots while at the same time retaining the best of its heritage. Despite some anti-educational elements in the denomination, FWBs have three colleges which are affiliated with either a state or the national association. Two additional colleges which have no direct ties to a state or the national association hold to FWB theology and have strong ties to a number of individual FWB churches. None of these colleges offers an MDiv which otherwise is the standard degree for ordination in many denominations. However, Hillsdale FWB College (Moore OK) offers a M.A. in ministry.

In recent years, FWBs have also seen many of its churches evolve away from its historical heritage in its ministerial approaches, some of which may be good or not so good. For example, National Ministries has a number of its church plants situated in major cities. Also, a number of churches have abandoned free church worship for contemporary worship. Moreover, a number of churches have moved away from congregational governance, embracing either an elder ruled governance or unilateral control by a single pastor. Consequently, visiting a FWB church, one probably should expect a genuinely friendly welcome, an informal welcome with announcements, three to five gospel hymns, special music and perhaps a choir number, a fervently preached sermon, and a hymn of invitation. Much of this will be led by non-professionals. A few individual churches may deviate from these expectations significantly. Sunday evening services often are more informal. Many churches regularly feature a time of personal sharing and testimonies.

One constant, however, has been FWB theology. It assumes a fierce, uncompromising commitment to the Bible which is unlikely to be challenged in the next generation or so. With this commitment comes a conservative hermeneutic, which is often practiced with some nuance, but not always. While a wide range of ministerial options is available for women, including single missionary service, there probably are currently no ordained women or women pastors in any affiliated FWB church. A good number of churches are opposed to or look suspiciously upon cooperative ministries with other denominations or churches; some churches hold to a “second line separation” which means that they will not fellowship with a sound, conservative believer who fellowships with someone who is a moderate or liberal Christian. The denomination voted to leave the National Association of Evangelicals, even though one of its own members (Billy Melvin) was instrumental in its initial founding and growth.

The most significant unique contribution FWBs have made to the annals of church history is to maintain and vigorously and effectively cultivate Reformation Arminian theology. This is all the more important in light of the Calvinist resurgence in the last decade. Reformation Arminianism poses an alternative to Calvinism which can be embraced by a large number of churches throughout evangelicalism. It affirms that 1) Jesus’ atonement paid the sin debt of all people; 2) that people enjoy this payment of their sin debt when they are united with Christ by faith; and 3) that God’s Spirit enables people who are totally depraved to believe in Jesus for salvation. The theological works of FWB theologians Stephen Ashby, Leroy Forlines, Robert Picirilli, and J. Matthew Pinson have had a major influence within the modern Arminian movement, as can be seen in the Society of Evangelical Arminians (http://arminians.org/).

Infant Baptism and Infant Communion?

This is an honest question: Why is it that people who are paedo-baptists (infant baptisers) don't invite non-believers to share in the Lord's Supper?

As a Baptist, I don't baptise infants simply because infants do not have a clear profession of faith--they are not believers. And I'm as certain as can be that non-believers should not be baptised.

Paedo-baptists have their own theological explanation as to why infants should be baptised, but at this point in my theological acuity, I still can't quite grasp their argument.

Being that as it may, I now wonder why paedo-baptists don't invite non-believers to share in communion. Or, to ask it another way, Why don't paedo-baptists put a speck of bread and a drop of juice into an infants mouth, much in the same way as they baptise the infant. Just as the infant might share in the death, burial and resurrection as portrayed in baptism, the infant might also share in the body and blood of Christ through communion.

Although the covenantal argument for infant baptism is too complex for me to really grasp, I would think that it could also be applied to infant communion. So, with this in mind, why don't paedo-baptists believe in infant communion.

My argument against infant communion is the same as my argument against infant baptism: non-believers shouldn't take communion or be baptised.

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