Tag Archives: Arminianism

Calvinism: An Introduction

 

With the summary of chapter 3 “The New Covenant Constitution and Arminianism” from a Reformed Baptist Manifesto written in the last post, it seems like a good time to expound upon some of the central tenets of Calvinism, otherwise known as the Doctrines of Grace.  Before beginning, it would serve us well to examine the historical development of Calvinism.  I should point out that while the name Calvinism has been given to the synthesis of 5 particular theological concepts, they didn’t originate with John Calvin (1509-1564).  In fact, the 5-points of Calvinism were written after Calvin’s death and were written as a defense of the 17th Century orthodox faith against what was determined to be the “heresy” of Arminianism[1].

Though Calvin certainly held to “Calvinism”, as can be seen in his Institutes of Christian Religion, historically, the beliefs can be traced throughout church history to the writings of Augustine (354AD-430AD), and I would argue to the Apostle Paul and all of inspired Scripture.  However, for some reason when modern evangelicals hear the term Calvinism they immediately put up a wall of defense and condemn not only Calvin, but anyone who would follow the teachings of this dastardly villain[2] (in their mind).  The problem is they, like me at one time, know little to nothing about Calvin neither the man nor the beliefs which share his name.  Without the work of Calvin, building upon the work and reformation of Martin Luther, there would have been no Protestant Reformation, no separation from Rome.  Calvin was not only instrumental in the Reformation, the proclamation of the gospel, the advancement of systematic theology, the writings of biblical commentaries, but he was instrumental in the discussions of church vs. state, church government, work ethic, and an argument could be made that America, as a democracy, owes the establishment of a republican form of government to John Calvin.  Take a few minutes to view the brief video about Calvin below (forgive the Desiring God commercial) or listen to the longer biography by Steven Lawson given at the 2009 Ligonier Conference, also below.

To understand the basis for the 5-points of Calvinism, we must examine why they were even written to begin with.  Largely, they were the consequence of a rebuttal to a contrary set of doctrines advanced in Netherlands in the early 17th century.  The “5-points of the Remonstrants”, as they are known, were drafted in 1610 by the Remonstrants, a group who sought to carry on the legacy of their teacher Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609).  They were written to set forth an opposition or protest against the teachings of Calvin, particularly as they were expounded upon by the author of the Belgic Confession (1561)[3].  Written in face of persecution from the Roman Catholic Church, the Belgic Confession remains one of the most helpful and comprehensive confessions of the Reformed faith.  For the purposes of why the Belgic Confession was written, see the helpful article here: http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/belgic-confession/

Controversy swirled for nearly a decade after the publication of the Remonstrant’s articles.  To settle the dust storm, a synod was called to examine these articles as they related to the confessions of the Belgic churches.  “This synod convened on November 13, 1618 consisting of 39 pastors and 18 ruling Elders from the Belgic churches, 5 professors from the universities of Holland, 19 delegates from the Reformed churches in Germany and Switzerland, and 5 professors and bishops from Great Britain. France was also invited but did not attend. The Synod was thus constituted of 86 voting members in all. There were 154 formal sessions and many side conferences held during the six months that the Synod met to consider these matters. The last session of the Synod was held on May 9, 1619.”[4]

Upon study of the Remonstrant’s objections, and a comparison of their beliefs with Scripture, the Synod determined that the Arminian doctrines were unscriptural.  Not only did they reject their assertions, but they drafted a rebuttal setting forth the beliefs that had been advanced by Calvin, et.al., coming out of the Reformation.  This document, called formally The Canons of Dort[5], contained, among other issues, a point by point rebuttal of the 5 articles set forth by the Remonstrants.  This summarized 5-point rebuttal is what has become commonly known as the 5-points of Calvinism.  As irony would have it, neither Calvin nor Arminius were alive during this debate, consequently, neither were able to stamp their own signatures upon the beliefs that have now become synonymous with their names.

Below you will find a helpful comparison of the two 5-point systems[6].  It’s not difficult to see the modern evidences of Arminianism in today’s church.  Although Arminianism was rejected at the Synod of Dort, these beliefs were revived from their dormancy through the ministry of John Wesley (1703-1791) (and others) and have come to dominate much of modern evangelicalism.  There is much more that could be said regarding the issue, but numerous books and anthologies have been written documenting the historical debate and defending/rebutting each position as the discussion wears on into the 21st Century.

THE “FIVE POINTS” OF
ARMINIANISM

THE “FIVE POINTS” OF
CALVINISM

Free Will or Human Ability
Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation.
Total Inability or Total Depravity
Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not — indeed he cannot — choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ — it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation— it is God’s gift to the
sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.
Conditional Election
God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man’s will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner’s choice of Christ, not God’s choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.
Unconditional Election
God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause God’s choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.
Universal Redemption or General Atonement
Christ’s redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone’s sins. Christ’s redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.
Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement
Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation
The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted
The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit’s call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man’s contribution) precedes and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man’s free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ’s saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God’s grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.
The Efficacious Call of the Spirit or Irresistible Grace
In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The eternal call (which is made to all without distinction) can be, and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By mean, of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man’s will, nor is He dependent upon man’s cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’s, grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.
Falling From Grace
Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith. etc. All Arminian, have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ — that once a sinner is regenerated. he can never be lost.
Perseverance of the Saints
All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.
According to Arminianism: Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man(who must respond)—man’s response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, “choose” to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man’s will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation. REJECTED by the Synod of Dort. This was the system of thought contained in the “Remonstrance” (though the “five points” were not originally arranged in this order). It was submitted by the Arminians to the Church of Holland in 1610 for adoption but was rejected by the Synod of Dort in 1619 on the ground that it was unscriptural. According to Calvinism: Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ’s death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation. REAFFIRMED by the Synod of Dort. This system of theology was reaffirmed by the Synod of Dort in 1619 as the doctrine of salvation contained in the Holy Scriptures. The system was at that time formulated into “five points” (in answer to the five points submitted by the Arminians) and has ever since been known as “the five points of Calvinism.”

 

 


[2] It should be noted that many people equate the burning at the stake of Michael Servetus with John Calvin, particularly the inaccurate account written by Voltaire, the source for much of the false information.  In reality, Servetus was convicted of heresy and by law was required to be burned at the stake.  Not by John Calvin.  Calvin actually worked to have the execution sentence changed to a more human form and it has been recounted that Calvin was concerned with the eternal soul of Servetus 16 years earlier and the concern remained up to Servetus’ march to the stake at which he was burnt.

[6] From: http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/arminianism/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/ –  “The following material from Romans: An Interpretative Outline (pp.144-147). by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, contrasts the Five Points of Arminianism with the Five Points of Calvinism in the clearest and most concise form that we have seen anywhere. It is also found in their smaller book, The Five Points of Calvinism (pp. 16-19). Both books are published by The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia.(1963). Messrs. Steele and Thomas have served for several years as co-pastors of a Southern Baptist church, in Little Rock, Arkansas.”

 

The New Covenant Constitution of the Church and Arminianism

 

We come now to the third chapter and third major assertion set forth by Sam Waldron in A Reformed Baptist Manifesto, a defense of the New Covenant Constitution of the Church.  In the previous two chapters we looked at the contrasts between Reformed Baptists and 1.) Dispensationalism and 2.) Antinomianism.  Here we turn our attention towards Arminianism.

For those who may be unfamiliar, Arminianism is, generally, the belief that man has free-will to determine his own destiny, i.e. salvation.  It is most often contrasted with God’s sovereignty in salvation, or what is commonly called Calvinism.  For more on this, search either term on this site or head over to monergism.com for more comprehensive articles on the subject and a history of the controversy.  I hope to have a more informative post on the development of Calvinism soon.

Our purposes here will be to examine the arguments set forth by Dr. Waldron in his aforementioned book.  The point of this particular chapter, as set for by Waldron, is that “the origination, building, or source of the Church…through the instrument of the New Covenant” is God “the sole sovereign builder, originator, and author of the Church as a whole, and of its individual members.” Waldron then takes up three major theses to defend this assertion, again turning his attention to Jeremiah 31.

1.     The Sovereign Determination behind the New Covenant

To this point, Waldron examines the contrast between the Old and New Covenant.  Turning to Exodus 19:4-6 we see the stated terms of the Old Covenant:

“4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

What may be obvious in this passage is the simple “if-then” statement used by God in the extension of this covenant to Israel.  “If you obey…then you shall be My own possession.”  In striking contrast the New Covenant, as quoted in Jeremiah 31 contains no if-then statements but rather the dogmatic assurity of the Lord saying, “I will” numerously.  This is what Waldron indicates is the Sovereign determination behind the New Covenant.

2.    The Unbreakable Character of the New Covenant.

In this particular section, we see the emphasis of the breakable nature of the Old Covenant, particularly in Deut. 29:25-28; Ps. 78:10,11; Jer. 11:9,10; 22:6-9; 34:13; Ezek. 44:6-8.  Continuing to focus on the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31, Waldron cites the following passage to note the contrast between the breakable character of the Old Covenant and the unbreakable character of the New Covenant:

31 Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.”  Jeremiah 31:31,32

The Old Covenant was written on breakable stone, and was broken as we have seen from the passages referenced above.  However, the promise of the New Covenant is that it is inscribed upon the hearts.  Lest one walk away thinking that the Old Covenant was somehow deficient or imperfect, Waldron points out that the real problem with the Old Covenant was with the people with whom it was made.  Citing Hebrews 8:8 he writes, “The Old Covenant did not secure the covenant keeping of those with whom it was made.  That was its fault.  Its fault was simply that it did not enable those with whom it was made to comply with its conditions.”  Conversely, the New Covenant supplies all that it demands through the regeneration of the heart, upon which the Covenant (law) is written and the presence of the Holy Spirit causes believers to walk according to the statutes and commands of God (See Ezek. 36).  Concluding this section, Waldron provides segue by asking, “How can God simply sweep aside the demands of His own justice and make a New Covenant like this with the house of Israel after their sins have brought upon them the fierce overflowing wrath of God?”

3.    The Mediatorial Guarantee of the New Covenant

This section begins with the promise that “God will forget the sins of His people and forgive their iniquities” given in Jeremiah 31:34, Waldron rightly points out this passage does not tell us how God will accomplish this, until Jeremiah 33:14-16, “14 Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’”  Further, the book of Hebrews (see Hebrews 7:22) provides divine commentary and explanation of how God planned to bring about this forgiveness, namely through the work of Jesus Christ particularly His office as “both priest and sacrifice of the New Covenant” which “insures and secures the establishment of the New Covenant and the impartation of its blessings to God’s Israel.”[1]  As Waldron concludes, “Jesus’ priestly sacrifice of Himself, once-for-all, finally, and efficaciously fulfills the demands of God’s law and assures the forgiveness of sins for all who are part of the New Covenant people of God.”[2]

Concluding Lessons

In order to bring to conclusion this chapter, against the incompatibility of Arminianism and the New Covenant, Dr. Waldron briefly summarizes the points of Arminianism, i.e. the “system which teaches that man’s free will is sovereign in salvation.”

  1. God has chosen to save those who believe in Christ and persevere in obedience to Him to the end.
  2. Christ died for each and every man, but only those who believe benefit from His death.
  3. In order for men to believe in Christ, God must work by His grace in their heart.
  4. Though this grace is the source of all good in men, yet they may resist this grace and not be saved by it.
  5. Though God will provide everything that men need to persevere to the end, it is not certain that once a man believes in Christ unto salvation, he will persevere to the end and finally be saved.

He then goes on to contrast each of these points with the doctrines of grace, or what some have termed “Calvinism”.  Some of Waldron’s comments are briefly quoted below.

  1. Total Depravity – “We see the truth of total depravity in the contrast with the Old Covenant mentioned in our passage.  What the Old Covenant demanded was simply faith and obedience.”  However, “Every faculty of man’s soul is polluted with sin.  All men are unable to do anything of any spiritual good.  Even repentance and faith are impossible due to this total depravity and total inability.”
  2. Unconditional Election – “God’s covenant is not made with a nation that has proved itself worthy of His choice.  Rather, God, with sovereign, unchangeable purpose has chosen through the New Covenant to make them worthy of His choice.”
  3. Limited Atonement – “We have seen from the Scriptures that the cross of Jesus Christ is saving because of its connection with this covenant.  Jesus’ whole work was covenant work; His blood covenant blood, His priesthood covenant priesthood, His office as Mediator a covenant office.  The question about the scope, extent, or design of the death of Christ ought not to be answered, therefore, without reference to this covenant.”
  4. Irresistible Grace – “God actually writes His law upon the hearts of His people.”
  5. Perseverance of the Saints – “God remembers their [those in the New Covenant] sins no more” He therefore is faithful to the promises of His covenant.
Dr. Waldron concludes this chapter with several helpful thoughts about what we learn from the doctrines of grace in a practical, straightforward manner.  I hope to take a few posts to explain further the 5 points of Calvinism that Dr. Waldron introduces here.  Again, if you would like to purchase this brief, helpful work on the Reformed Baptist approach to the New Covenant see RPAP.  Also, I also recommend Dr. Waldron’s exposition on the 1689 London Baptist Confession, available on Amazon.


[1] Pg. 55

[2] Pg. 57

The Sinners Conversion: The Chosen

In the last several posts here we have looked at the dangers of The Sinner’s Prayer.  From there we looked at how the formulas of man circumvent the work of the Holy Spirit, known as regeneration, in the hearts of sinners.  We learned how regeneration is clearly defined in John 3 and Titus 3 and how it involves not only cleansing from sin, but a spiritual rebirth.  Today, we’re going to begin part 1 of a series on the sinner’s conversion, beginning with a look at those whom God has chosen. 

The main passage for this series will be Ezekiel 36:24-26 where we get insight into the prophecy of the new covenant (see also Jeremiah 31) that God established with His people through His Son Jesus.  “24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.”  Note in this passage that God is doing all of the action.  First, we see God is gathering His people from the nations and all countries.  This is a striking statement considering until this announcement His chosen people had come from only 1 nation, Israel.  Thus, our first glimpse at the inclusive nature of those whom God has chosen. 

In the post A Chosen People, we looked at God’s selection of Israel as a people unto Himself.  Our passage from that study came from Deuteronomy 7:6-8:

6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.  7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. ”

In that passage we focused on how God set His love on Israel, choosing them for His “treasured possession” not because they were of any greater number, not because of anything they had done or could do, because in fact they were the “fewest” of all people.  Instead it was because God loved them.  What was the condition that Israel met in order to receive God’s love?  Nothing.  He did so out of His own good pleasure.  Remember in that post we asked was this fair of God?  He didn’t set His love on the Canaanites.  He didn’t choose the Amorites.  God didn’t choose the Philistines, the Hittites, the Amalekites, or the Egyptians.  Instead He consecrated a nation unto Himself beginning with Abraham.  And as we read to them belonged “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises…the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all.” (Romans 9:4-5)  So, was it fair of God, was He just in making a selection?  Absolutely!  He is after all, God and does whatever “His hand has predestined.”     

What fascinates me is that with a “controversial” subject such as God’s sovereign election of people, it is without dispute that God chose Israel as a physical nation and blessed them as we just read in Romans 9:4-5.  In fact, one would have to deny the truths of the entire Bible if they argued that Israel was not God’s chosen people.  It is through them that He brought King David and established the throne that would be the lineage of Christ, the Messiah.  God had a purpose in His selection and it was to work His own plan of redemption.

But this isn’t the end of the story, because we have the New Testament that sheds even greater light on God’s sovereign choice of Israel.  In fact, the Apostle Paul tells us that it’s not actually those who are Abraham’s physical offspring, i.e. children of the flesh, that God has chosen, but it’s actually, as Galatians 3:7 says “those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.”  We also read of this in Romans “…For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise who are counted as offspring.” Romans 9:6-8 Paul reemphasizes his argument later in this same chapter as he ties back to the Old Testament, “even us who He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles  25 As indeed He says in Hosea, ‘Those who were not my people I will call ‘My people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’  26 ‘And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” Romans 9:24-26 The Apostle Paul’s statement regarding the inclusion of not only the Jews, but likewise Gentiles as those whom God has chosen for salvation is a common theme throughout most of the New Testament, but specifically we see the continuity of God’s elective choice again in Ephesians 1:4-5 “even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him.  In love, 5 He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will.”   We should note here that the Church at Ephesus was composed largely of Gentiles, so Paul, a Jew, uses “us” and “we” to represent both collectively.

The Word of God is clear.  God chose Israel as a physical people, a nation unto Himself that would bring forth the Messiah.  But just as Paul quotes Isaiah, “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved,” (Romans 9:27 & Isaiah 10:22) within that physical nation of Israel are those whom God has saved, a spiritual people unto Himself.  As we’ve shown, God extended His salvation to the gentiles within whom there is also a group whom God has saved.  Those whom God has elected, both Jews and Gentiles, are collectively the adopted sons of God and as we’ll study next time this is a work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men.  “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.  29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.  His praise is not from man but from God.” Romans 2:28-29

The parallels of God’s redemptive plan in the Old Testament and the New are not only consistent, but they are a fascinating display of God’s sovereignty.  Just as I’m amazed that those who argue against election have little if any problem with God’s election of Israel as a physical people unto Himself, I am equally amazed that men have developed arguments against God’s election of people for salvation.  This argument was one that Jesus faced, as recorded in the Gospel of John and one that the Apostle Paul anticipated in Romans 9.  From there this argument persisted in the early Church as Augustine faced opposition from Pelagius.  Like a bad penny that kept turning up, arguments against God’s ability to choose for Himself arose again for Martin Luther as he faced the Roman Catholic Church and Erasmus.  For supporters of John Calvin, they countered the attacks of Arminius and the Puritans held ground against their contemporaries The Remonstrants.  We see it even extending to the early years of America as pelagianism, semi-pelagianism, or arminianism as it became known was spread by men like Charles Finney.  It should be noted that from the Apostle Paul’s opponents to Pelagius to Finney, the opposition to the doctrine of election was considered a heresy, because it was a direct assault on the sovereignty of God. 

It was only in the 1800’s, specifically through revivalism and faithful ministers such as John and Charles Wesley that these contrary beliefs grabbed a foothold.  Though rebuked mightily, and publically, by his good friend George Whitfield, John Wesley promoted the free will of man and the free grace of God.  Despite preaching efforts of men like Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon, who were vocal critics of man’s free will in salvation, the people loved that they could choose a god for themselves.  This created the chasm that we have today between the man-centered gospel of free will and the God-centered Gospel of His sovereignty and it is the primary reason why most if not all of us who are saved at one time believed in a  man-centered salvation (and a large majority still do).  It is only through growing in the “knowledge and grace” of our Lord Jesus Christ that God’s sovereignty is revealed.  No doubt some of you will receive this post with great difficulty, but I ask that you be Berean-like and search the Scriptures for yourself.  Ask God to reveal Himself and His redemptive plan to you.  When He does, realize that your salvation was absolutely nothing of yourself, but all of God, and be humbled by His mighty, amazing grace.

Lord willing we will continue our series next time with, The Sinner’s Conversion: The Gospel Call.