Roger Olson doesn’t like to debate, and he doesn’t like to defend his assertions, either, but that did not stop Dr. James White from reviewing his book “Against Calvinism.” A very troubling aspect of Olson’s book is that he admits that even if God revealed Himself to be and to act, as Calvinists say He does, Olson would refuse to worship Him. That’s an amazing thing for a professed Christian to say.
Here is Dr. White’s review.
Amongst the archives of the Banner of Truth website, I came across this article. The site does not specify the author.
Serious objections must be lodged against Arminian universal redemption, among which are these:
It slanders God’s attributes, such as his love. Arminianism presents a love that actually doesn’t save. It is a love that loves and then, if refused, turns to hatred and anger. It is not unchangeable love that endures from everlasting to everlasting. It provides atonement for all, but then withholds the means of grace that would make that salvation effectual in all lives. Are we to believe that Christ died for everyone in the deepest jungle and the darkest city, but his love doesn’t provide the missionaries, preachers, or sermons that would make his death effectual?
It slanders God’s wisdom. Why would God make a plan to save everyone, then not carry it out? Would he be so foolish as to have his Son pay for the salvation of all if he knew that Christ would not be able to obtain what he paid for? Some say he didn’t realise the consequences; he saw far enough to provide atonement, but couldn’t see that some wouldn’t take it. Does not that assertion slander the wisdom of God? Could God plan and provide atonement, but not realise that his atonement would not be accepted?
I would feel foolish if I went into a store and bought something, then walked out without it. Yet Arminianism asks us to believe that this is true of salvation — that there was a purchase made, a redemption, and yet the Lord walked away without those whom he had redeemed. That view slanders the wisdom of God.
It slanders God’s power. Arminian universalism obliges us to believe that God was able to accomplish the meriting aspect of salvation, but that the applying aspect is dependent on man and his free will. It asks us to believe that God has worked out everyone’s salvation up to a point, but no further for anyone. The implication is that God has built the bridge of salvation between him and us, and we have only to walk over it by accepting his terms of salvation through a free act of the will. ‘God does his part,’ Arminians say, ‘and now we must do our part.’
Calvinists respond by saying that this makes salvation dependent on the will of humanity, thereby reducing God and his power. Instead of our coming to God with our withered hands and saying, ‘If Thou wilt, Thou canst make us whole,’ this view has God coming to us with a withered hand, a hand that is not strong enough to save anyone, and saying, ‘If thou wilt, thou canst complete this salvation; thou canst make me whole.’ In essence, modern evangelistic sermons often take such an approach: ‘God has done much, but he needs you to complete the job.’ Does that way of thinking not slander the all-sufficient power of God? It makes God dependent on the will of man.
It slanders God’s justice. Did Christ satisfy God’s justice for everyone? Did Christ take the punishment due to everybody? If he did, how can God punish anyone? Is it justice to punish one person for the sins of another and later to punish the initial offender again? As Augustus Toplady said,
Payment God cannot twice demand;
First at my bleeding Surety’s hand,
And then again at mine.
God can’t and won’t demand payment twice. Double punishment is injustice.
Continue reading
I was asked this question earlier today. Its obviously an important one and something that needs to be addressed.
Let me start by saying that doctrinal precision is important; far more important than many people realize. Yet having correct doctrine by itself saves no one.
The first individuals to recognize Christ were demons. Mark, in his Gospel tells us of a man with an unclean spirit who cried out “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are — the Holy One of God.” But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!”” (Mark 1:24, 25)
Jesus did not wish for His identity to be established by the testimony of demons and so dealt with the situation accordingly, but it must be said, the demons possessed accurate knowledge concerning Christ, though they hated all that they knew about Him.
Clearly, such intellectual knowledge is not enough to save, which is the very point James is making when with sacrcasm literally dripping from his pen he writes, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” (James 2:19) Our ancient foe could pass the most rigorous theological exam, yet he hates everything he knows about God. Knowledge is not enough.
Having said that, knowledge is vital. Some issues are indeed so vital to the soul that to get it wrong means no salvation. Jesus said, “.. unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24) That’s clear isn’t it?
The Lord never gives us a free pass in false doctrine. We are called to search the Scriptures diligently and to love Him with our minds as well as our hearts. Yet some theological errors are worse than others and some are less important.
For instance, I am a Credo Baptist. That means I believe water baptism is something to be administered when a baptismal candidate professes faith in Christ and not before. I have very good friends who do not see the issue the same way as myself who have no problem baptizing babies. One of us is wrong. We cannot both be right. One of us is actually sinning – grieving God by maintaining a false belief and practice. Yet we believe the best of each other and are certain that if either of us could convince the other of the truth from the Scripture, the other person would change their view instantly.
Even though the issue is a very important one, I do not believe it is enough of an issue to mean that while disagreement remains, one of us is saved and the other is not. While we do not see eye to eye on this doctrine, we embrace each other as precious brothers in Christ, and join together in the unity of faith in the gospel.
Baptism is an important issue but secondary to that which is primary. The Gospel is primary, as are doctrines such as the Trinity, the virgin birth and sinless life of Christ, His full deity and humanity, His atoning death for sinners on the cross and His physical resurrection from the dead and His future second coming in power and glory. These are the BIG issue doctrines we must adhere to.
I cannot have Christian fellowship with someone who denies the Trinity or justification by faith alone. These doctrines, as well as many others like them, are central to the Christian faith. There is no unity of faith in Christ outside of the gospel. According to Galatians chapter 1, a false gospel, whether championed by an apostle or even an angel, brings the eternal curse of God (anathema). There are such things as “damnable heresies.” (2 Peter 2:1).
So where is Arminianism in all this?
Being convinced that the Scriptures teach Calvinistic or Reformed soteriology (the study of salvation) the question is sometimes asked, “just how grave an error is Arminianism?” Continue reading
Back in October, 2006 a debate was set to take place between James White and Ergun Caner on the subject of Calvinism. Sadly, the debate never happened because the Caner side tried to change the rules of the debate just days before the event. However, the nearest we came to a debate was this Dividing Line program where a sermon by Ergum Caner was played and James White responded.
Lane Chaplin has done a masterful job in producing this video and deserves much credit for the result. I believe it is a very useful exchange.
We live in the age of sound bites. Unless a speech is carried live by the television networks, it is condensed to a 5 or 10 second excerpt on a news program (and the words we do hear are often taken out of context). There is no doubt that culturally speaking, our attention span has suffered because of this. The networks are not the only ones to blame here for they are simply giving the people want they want. People want “just the facts” not all the various nuances and subtleties.
There’s something very good about being concise and pithy. Many a sermon would have been “brilliant” if it had ended ten minutes earlier than it did. There’s something wonderful about “getting to the point.” Yet when brevity is championed to the degree it is in our society, what is lost is a certain thing called knowledge. What suffers is comprehension and understanding.
With this in mind I want to point you to a rather lengthy article by Dr. J. I. Packer on the subject of Arminianism. Being English, I would encourage you to make yourself a hot cup of tea before sitting down to read it. It will take some time, but I believe the benefits outweigh the effort. Sometimes we need more than a short blog post to understand an issue.
Here’s an excerpt:
“Biblically, the difference between these two conceptions of how God in love relates to fallen human beings may be pinpointed thus. Arminianism treats our Lord’s parable of the Supper to which further guests were invited in place of those who never came (Luke 14:16-24; cf. Matt. 22:1-10) as picturing the whole truth about the love of God in the gospel. On this view, when you have compared God’s relation to fallen men with that of a dignitary who invites all needy folk around to come and enjoy his bounty, you have said it all. Calvinism, however, does not stop here, but links with the picture of the Supper that of the Shepherd (John 10:11-18, 24-29) who has his sheep given him to care for (vv. 14, 16, 27; cf. 6:37-40; 17:6, 11f.), who lays down his life for them (10:15), who guarantees that all of them will in due course hear his voice (vv. 16, 27) and follow him (v. 27), and be kept from perishing forever (v. 28). In other words, Calvinism holds that divine love does not stop short at graciously inviting, but that the triune God takes gracious action to ensure that the elect respond. On this view, both the Christ who saves and the faith which receives him as Savior are God’s gifts, and the latter is as much a foreordained reality as is the former. Arminians praise God for providing a Savior to whom all may come for life; Calvinists do that too, and then go on to praise God for actually bringing them to the Savior’s feet.
So the basic difference between the two positions is not, as is sometimes thought, that Arminianism follows Scripture while Calvinism follows logic, nor that Arminianism knows the love of God while Calvinism knows only his power, nor that Arminianism affirms a connection between believing and obeying as a means and eternal life as an end which Calvinism denies, nor that Arminianism discerns a bona fide “free offer” of Christ in the gospel which Calvinism does not discern, nor that Arminianism acknowledges human responsibility before God and requires holy endeavor in the Christian life while Calvinism does not. No; the difference is that Calvinism recognizes a dimension of the saving love of God which Arminianism misses, namely God’s sovereignty in bringing to faith and keeping in faith all who are actually saved. Arminianism gives Christians much to thank God for, and Calvinism gives them more.”
O.K. – got the kettle on? Is the tea brewing in the pot? Got a few minutes spare?
Alright, here’s Dr. Packer’s full length article.
This blog title is written with a big “tongue in cheek” as I am convinced that the Bible presents a consistent message and that when properly understood, there are no “Arminian verses” in God’s word. However, four verses are normally raised as proof texts for their view:
John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4 and Matthew 23:37.
For those who like videos, here are some that have been made to specifically address these verses in their context. The first three are by Pastor Jim McClarty of Grace Christian Assembly, Smyrna, Tennessee. The last one is by Dr. James White of www.aomin.org. Enjoy!
John 3:16
2 Peter 3:9
1 Timothy 2:4
In this last video, which is longer than the others (above), Dr. James White deals with Matthew 23:37, 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9.
Perhaps you can relate to this – Divine election does indeed seem to be clearly taught in the Bible. Passages such as Romans 8 and 9, Ephesians 1 and 2, John 3, John 6, John 10, John 17, and many others, make a convincing case. However, certain verses, at least at first glance, seem to present a different picture.
Over time I have sought to deal with some of the most frequently cited verses that are raised as objections to Divine election (the “what about?” verses, as I call them) trusting that this can be a helpful resource.
“WHAT ABOUT?” VERSES:
“WHAT ABOUT” CONCEPTS:
How can divine election be true if God is not a respecter of persons?
Does God create people knowing they will end up in hell?
If Divine election is true, why should we even bother to evangelize?
The ten different uses of the word “world” in John’s Gospel
Another question that often arises is “how can God be just in requiring man to do what he is unable to do?” John Piper answers that question here in this short video: