Arminianism, Universal Atonement, and Universal Salvation

J. D. Gallé | Sunday, 23 August 2015

        In this article I will seek to demonstrate that, when properly understood, the Arminian belief in universal atonement does not logically necessitate the realisation of universal salvation. I will argue that the reason why the latter need not follow from the former lies in God’s free and sovereign decision to save sinful human beings conditionally.

The universality of atonement and the conditionality of salvation 

        A basic tenet of Arminianism is that salvation is genuinely conditional in nature. Consequently, individual election to salvation is understood as conditional as well.[1] The logical corollary to conditional salvation is unlimited/universal atonement: Christ died for all persons without exception. Arminians affirm that God the Father sent Jesus Christ as a sin offering into the world in order to procure salvation universally for all humankind. However, in the economy of redemption, God has decreed that salvation be applied only to particular individuals, namely believers. In other words, whereas the procurement of salvation is universal in nature, its application is particular. The conditionality of salvation is made evident in this: God has determined to actually save only those who place their faith in the blood of Christ for the remission of their sins.

The potentiality of universal salvation 

        The benefits of Christ’s propitiatory/expiatory death on the cross may be received or appropriated by all, but neither a positive or negative response to the good news is divinely determined or guaranteed. In the present age, persons may accept or reject the saving work of Jesus Christ. Whilst salvation has been objectively achieved for all, it must be subjectively applied. The potential for universal salvation exists, but its actualisation is by no means a foregone conclusion. God requires that persons respond to the gospel of Christ by meeting the gracious conditions of salvation as set forth in his Word. Salvation is a gift that must be received. Arminians deny the inevitability of universal salvation because Christ did not die with the aim of infallibly (or unconditionally) securing the salvation of all persons irrespective of the human response to the good news.[2, 3]

The condition of those outside Christ 

        Put another way, the non-Calvinist’s logic is fairly straightforward: whilst God desires that all persons become reconciled to him by responding to the gospel in repentance and faith in his Son Jesus Christ, unbelievers remain in a state of condemnation and estrangement from God. So long as persons remain unrepentant and unbelieving, they are left in an unsaved condition, under the wrath of God for their personal sins. For those who reject Christ, Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross does not benefit them. Unbelievers have not been united to Christ or into his death by baptism, nor have their sins been cancelled or remitted. They are dead in their trespasses and sins, dead to God, and without the Holy Spirit. If one should die in this unrepentant, unbelieving state, he or she will be irreversibly condemned in the age to come when the Lord Jesus Christ returns to judge the living and the dead.[4]

Conclusion 

        In upholding the universal scope of Christ’s sacrifice for sin and the particularity of salvation, Arminianism serves as a kind of via media between Calvinism and universalism. When salvation is understood as conditional in nature, there is little difficulty in holding an unlimited/universal atonement in tandem with a limited or particular application of Christ’s sin-cancelling death on the cross. Whilst the forgiveness of sins is restricted to believers only, the truth of universal atonement is in no way negated. The procurement of salvation is not restricted, only its application. All are called to respond positively to the good news because the good news is intended by God to be received by all. Christ died for the salvation of all; therefore, all may potentially be saved.
        The only problem we are left with is the tragedy of any rejecting Christ and his propitiatory/expiatory sacrifice for sins. Apart from the sin of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit,[5] all manner of sins may be forgiven humans. The reason why all are not saved is because all do not turn from their sins and receive the remission of their sins through faith in the cross of Christ. All sins may be cleansed, but not apart from faith in the blood of Jesus. In the end, the difficulty we are left to grapple with is the pervasiveness of human obstinacy and depravity,[6] not any want of a universal atonement for sin.[7]

Notes

        1. Arminians deny that God has unconditionally elected or unconditionally damned any human being, thus negating the high Calvinistic doctrine of double predestination.

        2. The salvation of all persons without exception could only be infallibly ensured via exhaustive divine foreordination. If God decreed that all persons without exception should respond positively to the good news and have the benefits of Christ’s redemptive work applied to them, all would invariably be saved. Whilst foundational with respect to strict Calvinism as a brand of theological determinism, the doctrine of exhaustive foreordination is foreign to Arminianism and all forms of free-will theism (e.g. Eastern Orthodoxy, open theism).

        3. Furthermore, the human response itself is not secured. Arminians of all stripes deny that Christ in some way purchased ‘the gifts’ of repentance and faith for specific individuals via his death on the cross. If repentance and faith are in fact divine gifts bestowed on some and withheld from others (as claimed by Calvinists), the sole reason why any person should ever fail to turn from his or her sins and savingly believe on Christ is because God did not see it fit to unconditionally elect him or her to salvation via his eternal decree. Differing views on human depravity and prevenient grace notwithstanding, at the fundamental level free-will theists understand repentance and faith to be the individual human’s free, non-meritorious response to the good news of Jesus Christ for the reception of the divine gift of salvation.
        4. For the purposes of the present discussion, whether the resurrection of judgement/condemnation (see John 5.29) entails endless conscious punishment or culminates in the final annihilation of the unrighteous is a moot point.
        5. See Matthew 12.22–32; Mark 3.22–30; Luke 12.10.
        6. See John 3.19–20; Romans 3.9–18.
        7. Contrary to the high Calvinistic doctrine of limited (or definite) atonement. Strict Calvinists deny that Christ died in a saving sense for all persons without exception.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016. All rights reserved.


Latest revisions: 12 November 2015 (n. 1 slightly altered); 21 November 2015 (a few alterations made); 2 April 2016 (n. 1 modified and one note added); 7 July 2016 (two words emended); 18 September 2016 (first, fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs slightly emended; nn. 1, 2, and 7 slightly emended); 2 October 2016 (minor emendations); 17 February 2018 (six colons converted to full stops).

Justification, Regeneration, and Progressive Sanctification: Three Distinct yet Interrelated Aspects of Salvation

J. D. Gallé | Thursday, 13 August 2015

Preface

        What follows is a recent response I gave to a Roman Catholic online. I have made various revisions to my original message and have expanded upon it as you see it now in its final form below.


Justification, Regeneration, and Progressive Sanctification: Three Distinct yet Interrelated Aspects of Salvation

Arthur Sippo: [Roman] Catholicism insisted that we are not merely saved from the consequences of sin, but from sin itself. To do this we must undergo transformation to become a new creation in Christ so that we are not enslaved to sin but the willing servants of righteousness. This is the clear teaching of Romans 6.

J. D. Gallé: Contrary to Roman Catholicism, conventional Protestantism maintains a strong distinction between justification and sanctification. Whereas sanctification is understood as progressive in nature, conventional Protestants do not recognise justification as a process. Nevertheless, Calvinists and Arminians alike maintain the necessity of both in salvation. Sinful human beings require remission for their sins, a right standing before God (justification), and deliverance from the power and practice of sin as well (regeneration). Believers are saved from objective guilt and condemnation[1] as transgressors of God’s law via justification and freed from the power of sin via regeneration.[2] These two aspects of salvation, whilst distinct, occur simultaneously; one cannot be divorced from the other. (It is not possible for one to be justified and unregenerate or unjustified and regenerate.)

As a result of the regenerating work of the indwelling Holy Spirit, believers are enabled to live lives of ongoing repentance from sin. The goal is for believers to become increasingly holy (set apart, consecrated) over time, maturing in Christ in the present age. This concept is known as progressive sanctification. Protestants typically maintain that believers will not attain sinless perfection prior to final salvation (glorification). Until then, even the greatest Christians fall something short of perfect obedience. The reflection of Christ’s moral image is not yet wholly untainted in the most virtuous of saints.

When you write that ‘[W]e must undergo transformation to become a new creation in Christ so that we are not enslaved to sin but the willing servants of righteousness. This is the clear teaching of Romans 6’, you are using the scriptural terminology ‘new creation’ incorrectly. ‘New creation’ (kainē ktsis) occurs in two texts, both of which are Pauline: 2 Corinthians 5.17 and Galatians 6.15. In the former text, when Paul writes, ‘[I]f anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation’ (2 Cor. 5.17, ESV), he is speaking of the believer’s regenerate condition as a result of his or her union with Jesus Christ. Paul is not here addressing the matter of believers progressing in holiness as in Romans 6 where (in so many words) he exhorts those who have been baptised into the death of Christ to continue submitting to God and not reclaim sin as their master. There Paul urges believers to live in accordance with their identity in Christ as dead to sin and alive to God (see Rom. 6.10–11). The consecrated living of saints (i.e. walking in ‘newness of life’, Rom. 6.4) is to spring forth from believers’ union with Christ (vv. 3–7). This union between Christ and believers is a present reality that occurred at a specific point in the past: in baptism (vv. 3–4; see also Col. 2.11–14).

The point that must be stressed is this: regeneration is God’s act. One cannot make himself or herself a new creation in Jesus Christ (see Jn 1.12–13).[3] As I see it, the error you have made is in conflating progressive sanctification with regeneration. The process of moral transformation (otherwise known as progressive sanctification) is ongoing and the result of regeneration. No amount of human striving for holiness will result in justification (the forgiveness of sins; a sinner being declared righteous before a holy God), being ‘born again’[4] by the power of the Holy Spirit (regeneration), or union with Christ. We must be careful not to inadvertently reverse the order of salvation (ordo salutis).

Notes

        1. That is, the divine eschatological penalty against sin, resulting in endless, conscious punishment or final annihilation (see e.g. Matt. 13.40–42; 25.41, 46; Mk 9.43–47; Lk. 13.3, 5; Jn 3.16, 36; Rom. 6.23; Phil. 3.19; 2 Thess. 1.9; 2 Pet. 2.6; 3.6–7; Jude 7; Rev. 14.9–11; 21.8).
        2. Regeneration is sometimes referred to as initial sanctification.
        3. I will leave aside the Arminian–Calvinist dispute concerning whether regeneration precedes faith or faith precedes regeneration. As a non-Calvinist, I understand the latter view to be correct.
        4. Or ‘born from above’ (see Jn 3.3).

Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.


Latest revisions: 11 November 2015 (some material was added and revised in the fifth and sixth paragraphs); 13 November 2015 (one word added); 18 September 2016 (minor emendations); 18 November 2016 (converted a ‘cf.’ to ‘see also’ in brackets [i.e. parenthesis]); 17 February 2018 (converted twenty colons to full stops); 26 February 2018 (abbreviated assorted scriptural references); 24 May 2019 (minor revision to n. 1); altered two scriptural abbreviations (12 Dec. 2021); added a comma in n. 1 (14 Aug. 2022).