Remonstrating against a Reduced Scope of the Atonement, and Countering the Garbled Charge of Non–High Calvinist Christians Following a False God: a Response to Jeff Crippen

J. D. Gallé | Wednesday, 6 Octorber 2021

Preamble

        The following article originated as a comment I penned (or typed, if one must be pedantic) on Tuesday, 28 September 2021, and submitted for publication on an online blog entitled Unholy Charade (UC) on the same date.[1] As nearly eight days have elapsed since and my comment has yet to appear on the UC website, it is reasonable to suppose that my post has been relegated to the electronic dustbin by the host or moderator(s) of the aforesaid blog. Accordingly, being a resourceful and resilient Remonstrant, rather than allowing my thoughts to for ever disappear into the aether, I have opted to post them here.

        Apart from the addition of endnotes, I have made only a few modifications to my original, unacknowledged post in the article below, most of which are corrections (few though they may be). Headings have been added to enhance readability.

Remonstrating against a Reduced Scope of the Atonement, and Countering the Garbled Charge of Non–High Calvinist Christians Following a False God: a Response to Jeff Crippen

[I]t is a false statement to insist that Christ died for your abuser. Christ died for His people, for His elect (see John 17 for instance). […] The god who loves the wicked as much as he loves his children, the god who died on the cross for the unrepentant, habitually and characteristically oppressor of widows and orphans, is in the fact the false god [sic]. (Jeff Crippen, ‘This Is a Very Damaging Teaching That Abusers Love’ [par. 4; emphases added][2])

‘For whom did Christ die?’ Differentiating two articulations of the extent of the atonement

        The point I would like to specifically address here is what appears to be a frank denial of the doctrine of universal atonement: the view that Christ died for all persons without exception. I am aware that, from your strict/high Calvinistic confessional stance, affirmation of the teaching variously referred to as definite atonement, particular atonement, particular redemption, and limited atonement, the view that Christ died in a salvational sense for the elect alone (i.e. those who are finally saved), is taken for granted, and am unsurprised that you should reassert your belief in this doctrine on occasion. To be forthright, theologically, I personally am an Arminian/Remonstrant, and consequently believe universal atonement to be well-founded scripturally. It is not my aim to argue the point here.

Is a Christ who died for all a false god? A slapdash assertion countered

        That said, what troubles me is that, when broaching a topic as vital, and yes, even controversial (if only in Protestant quarters[3]), as the extent (or scope) of the atonement (i.e. ‘For whom did Christ die?’), a statement as careless and unnuanced as ‘the god who died on the cross for the unrepentant, […] is in the fact the false god [sic]’ should be made. To all appearances, this assertion alienates the vast majority of believers throughout the past two thousand years for taking scriptures such as John 3.16, 2 Corinthians 5.14–15, 1 Timothy 2.6, and 1 John 2.2 at face value, and makes them out to be idolaters (unwitting or otherwise) for holding what you believe to be a spurious understanding of scripture, namely the view that Christ died for all persons without exception, elect and non-elect alike.[4] For, even if the doctrine of particular atonement is correct (a point which I do not concede), and it could be shown that a strict Calvinistic luminary such as John Owen has reasonably demonstrated that ‘all’ and ‘world’ should be taken in a restricted sense in the aforementioned texts (which I also deny), you stack the deck so as to make out a deity who should die for all persons without exception a false god.

The scriptures affirm universal atonement and the damnation of the finally obdurate

        I do believe Christ died for all, yes, because I believe the scriptures affirm this, and I believe that this may be (and has been) demonstrated exegetically.[5] But I believe the scriptures also affirm that those who refuse to respond positively to the Good News, namely those who do not turn/change their thoughts and works and give their allegiance to Jesus Christ as King, shall perish and never enter the kingdom of God. The work of Christ on the cross, in the case of the unfaithful and recalcitrant, does not become efficacious (i.e. the redeeming work of Christ is not applied), because they refuse to bow their knee to him in their hearts and lives, having not trust or faith in God (which pleases him [Hebrews 11.6]), but presumption alone.

        In summary, the procurement of salvation via the sacrificial and substitutionary death of Christ on the cross and its application are distinct; the former does not necessitate the latter.[6]

The enmity of God against evildoers established; the possibility of reprobation considered

        As for the wicked and abusers, I heartily concur that, according to the scriptures, God does indeed loathe and despise them (e.g. Psalm 5.5). There is a sense in which I can understand how abuse survivors/targets/victims might come to find the doctrine of universal atonement offensive or even implausible simply by considering the utter degeneracy and malevolence with which they have had to endure and contend.

        I do know this: God stands against these oppressors and evil human beings. Judicial hardening can and will result for the treacherous, the boastful, the arrogant, and enslavers. I believe it is possible for God to cut off abominably wicked sinners in this life and not afford them any further grace to turn and be saved, leaving them in their blindness, for he is within his rights to do so. God shall not be mocked.

The special relationship between God the Father and those united to his Son

        Lastly, I should say that there is also no doubt in my mind that God loves his children, those who are in Christ Jesus, those born from above by the power of the Holy Spirit, more than the generality of humankind who are now estranged from him. Those who are incorporated, or united, into Christ, namely those who have submitted to the conditions of the proclamation of the Good News (e.g. Mark 1.15; John 3.16; Acts 2.38), are persons for whom God has a unique, familial affection. Having been united to Christ, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus is now rightfully their Father. And, for those loving God, Jesus Christ has become their eldest brother (e.g. Romans 8.28; Hebrews 2.11–12). These are adopted as children, sons and daughters of God.

Notes

        1. The article may be viewed by clicking on the following link: <https://unholycharade.com/2021/09/27/this-is-a-very-damaging-teaching-that-abusers-love/>. Readers are encouraged to read the article in its entirety.
        2. For the link to this article, see note 1 above.

        3. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, for example, are two significant Christian traditions which recognise the universal extent of the atonement. For a survey of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, strict Calvinistic, Wesleyan-Arminian, and evangelical universalist perspectives on the scope of the atonement, see Adam J. Johnson (ed.), Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement, Counterpoints: Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2019).

        4. In the original, instead of ‘namely the view that Christ died for all persons without exception, elect and non-elect alike’, I bungled my initial thought, stating the opposite of what I had intended(!): ‘namely that Christ did not die for any but the finally saved alone (i.e. the elect).’

        5. For biblical and theological defences of the universality of the atonement, see David L. Allen, ‘The Atonement: Limited or Universal?’, in idem and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-point Calvinism (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010), pp. 61–108; David L. Allen, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019), pp. 154–83; idem, ‘A Critique of Limited Atonement’, in David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), pp. 71–127; John Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed: Wherein the Most Glorious Work of the Redemption of the World by Jesus Christ, Is Vindicated against the Encroachments of Later Times (1651; repr., London, UK: Thomas Tegg, 1840); I. Howard Marshall, ‘For All, for All My Saviour Died’, in Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross (eds), Semper Reformandum: Studies in Honour of Clark H. Pinnock (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2003), pp. 322–46; Terry L. Miethe, ‘The Universal Power of the Atonement’, in Clark H. Pinnock (ed.), The Grace of God and the Will of Man (1989; repr., Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1995), pp. 71–96; Roger E. Olson, Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2011), pp. 136–54; Grant R. Osborne, ‘General Atonement View’, in Andrew David Naselli and Mark A. Snoeberger (eds), Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: Three Views (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2015), pp. 81–127; Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2002), pp. 103–38; idem, ‘The Intent and Extent of Christ’s Atonement’, in Clark H. Pinnock and John D. Wagner (eds), Grace for All: The Arminian Dynamics of Salvation (Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2015), pp. 51–68; J. Matthew Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, ed. Benjamin L. Merkle (Nashville, TN: Kregel Academic, 2022), pp. 119–28; Geoffrey D. Robinson, Saved by Grace through Faith or Saved by Decree? A Biblical and Theological Critique of Calvinist Soteriology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2022), pp. 190–229.

        6. The last sentence in this paragraph is not in the original.

Addenda

Addendum A (17 Sept. 2022).  For readers who are yet unsure of the scripturalness of the doctrine of universal atonement, particularly those who may be presently adhering to a strict or high Calvinistic understanding of the extent of the atonement (whether knowingly or unknowingly), allow me to encourage you to consult the citations in note 5 (above).* Additionally, for articles and book excerpts relating to this matter, please refer to the ‘universal atonement’ tab under the heading ‘Name and subject docket’ on the right-hand sidebar of this web page.

Addendum B (21 Sept. 2022).  For two fairly recent, worthwhile online articles that argue for the universality of Christ’s atonement, over against theological approaches which seek to limit the number of human beings for whom Christ died salvationally to the elect alone, see the following links (the latter of which must be read only subsequent to the former):

• David L. Allen, ‘Yes, Jesus Did Die for [the Sins of] Everyone’ (sic) (9 Sept. 2019);
• idem, ‘Responding to My Responders’ (12 Sept. 2019).

Addendum C (2 Jan. 2023; 26 Mar. 2023).  See a Neo-Remonstrant’s ‘Idea lists’ on my Amazon profile page, particularly ‘Contra Calvinism’ and ‘Pro Arminianism / Remonstrantism’, in order to view and/or purchase literature countering Calvinistic theology and arguing in favour of Arminian theology (respectively)*:

• A Remonstrant’s Recommended Writings: or, a Neo-Remonstrant’s Idea Lists (Amazon)
• Contra Calvinism
  
• Pro Arminianism / Remonstrantism
  

Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2021, 2022, 2023. All rights reserved.

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website or via my Amazon Idea Lists. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

Latest revisions: corrected a typographical error in preamble (13 Oct. 2021); added a comma in first par. of response; added one note, namely n. 5; converted what was formerly n. 5 to n. 6 (17–8 Nov. 2021); removed square brackets in n. 4 (23 Nov. 2021); corrected page number of one citation in n. 5 (1 Dec. 2021); altered one letter from lower to upper case in citation (31 Jan. 2022); slightly modified n. 3 (19 Feb. 2022); last sentence in one paragraph converted to a paragraph of its own (9 May 2022); added a paragraph break in one place (31 May 2022); added five citations to n. 5; omitted a term in n. 5 (3, 6 Nov. 2022); added one citation to n. 5 (16 Feb. 2023); updated web-page links for Addendum C (19 Nov. 2024).

Adam Clarke on the Universality of the Atonement

        He died for every human soul, for all who are partakers of the same nature which he has assumed; the merit and benefits of his death must necessarily extend to all mankind, because he has assumed that nature which is common to all. Nor could the merit of his death be limited to any particular part, nation, tribe, or individuals of the vast human family. It is not the nature of a particular nation, tribe, family, or individual, which he has assumed, but the nature of the whole human race; and “God has made of one blood all the nations, for to dwell on all the face of the earth,”[1] that all those might be redeemed with “one blood;” for he is the kinsman of the whole. The merit of his death must, therefore, extend to every man, unless we can find individuals or families that have not sprung from that stock of which he became incarnated. His death must be infinitely meritorious, and extend in its benefits to all who are partakers of the same nature, because he was God manifested in the flesh; and to contract or limit that merit, that it should apply only to a few, or even to any multitudes short of the whole human race, is one of those things which is impossible to God himself, because it involves a moral contradiction. He could no more limit the merit of that death, than he could limit his own eternity, or contract that love which induced him to undertake the redemption of a lost world.
        If the many, that is, all mankind, have died through the offence of one; certainly, the gift by grace, which abounds unto the many, by Christ Jesus, must have reference to every human being.[2] If the consequences of Christ’s incarnation and death extend only to a few, or a select number of mankind, which, though they may be considered many in themselves, are few in comparison of the whole human race, then the consequences of Adam’s sin have extended only to a few, or to the same select number: and if only many and not all have fallen, only that many had need of a Redeemer. For it is most evident that the same persons are referred to in both clauses of the verse. If the apostle had believed that the benefits of the death of Christ had extended only to a select number of mankind, he never could have used the language he has done here; though, in the first clause, he might have said, without any qualification of the term, “Through the offence of one, many are dead;” in the second clause, to be consistent with the doctrine of particular redemption,[3] he must have said, “The grace of God, and the gift by grace, hath abounded unto some. As, by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon some to justification. As, by one man’s disobedience, many were made sinners; so, by the obedience of one, shall some be made righteous.[4] As in Adam all die; so in Christ shall some be made alive.”[5] But neither the doctrine nor the thing ever entered the soul of this divinely inspired man.[6]

Adam Clarke, Christian Theology (repr., Salem, OH: Convention Book Store, 1967), pp. 117–8, emphases in original

Notes

        1. Acts 17.26.
        2. See Romans 5.17–19.
        3. The doctrine of particular redemption is sometimes referred to as limited atonement, particular atonement, or definite atonement. The essence of the teaching is that Christ died with the intention of securing spiritual and eschatological salvation for a portion of humankind, not the whole. According to this view, those for whom Christ died salvationally will inevitably become partakers of salvation; those for whom he did not, will not.
        4. Contra Romans 5.17–19, Berean Literal Bible (BLB): ‘For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one, how much more will those receiving the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ! So then, just as through one trespass, it is unto condemnation to all men, so also through one act of righteousness it is unto justification of life to all men. For as indeed through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One, the many will be made righteous.’
        5. Contra 1 Corinthians 15.22 (BLB): ‘For as indeed in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.’
        6. Namely Paul the apostle.  —J. D. Gallé

Notes copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019. All rights reserved.

David L. Allen on the Significance of the Scope of the Atonement and Properly Differentiating the Aspects of Christ’s Redemptive Work: the Intent, Extent, and Application Thereof

J. D. Gallé | Sunday, 5 May 2019

        ‘Traditional’ Southern Baptist David L. Allen has written extensively on the atonement.[1] Allen demonstrates the importance of carefully distinguishing between the intent, extent, and application of Christ’s sacrificial, substitutionary death on the cross.

        Allen takes the position of a universal/unlimited scope of the atonement with particular/limited application: the number for whom Christ procured salvation via his death and the actual salvation of persons are not necessarily co-extensive (a proposition which is anathema to high Calvinists). Universalism, the doctrine that all persons without exception will eventually be saved (via ante- or post-mortem acceptance and meeting the conditions of the gospel proclamation), is thereby denied.
        In contrast with strict/high Calvinists, Arminians, non-Calvinists, and moderate (i.e. Amyraldian, four-point) Calvinists alike affirm that the extent of the atonement encompasses the whole of humankind (universal/unlimited atonement). Without equivocation, then, according to this view, it may be said that Jesus Christ has died for all.

        Differences amongst Arminians and Amyraldians emerge, however, when the intent of the atonement is taken under consideration.

        As regards the application of the atonement, for those who have heard the proclamation of the good news, strict Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree that the benefits of Christ’s atonement are applied exclusively to those who respond in faith. High Calvinists are unique in their insistence that Christ did not die in a salvational sense for the non-elect (or ‘reprobate’); rather, they believe that the scope of the atonement is restricted to a portion of humankind, not humankind as a whole (particular/limited atonement).
         As regards the significance of the extent of the atonement, I personally am of the opinion that the query ‘For whom did Christ die?’ is worthy of serious consideration and should not be relegated to the heap of impractical, conjectural footnotes of theology (of which there surely are more than a few).[2]

Notes

        1. See David L. Allen, ‘The Atonement: Limited or Universal?’, in idem and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-point Calvinism (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010), pp. 61–108; David L. Allen, The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016); idem, ‘Commentary on Article 3: The Atonement of Christ’, in David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Hardwood (eds), Anyone Can Be Saved: A Defense of  “Traditional” Southern Baptist Soteriology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016), pp. 55–65; David L. Allen, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019); and, most recently, idem, ‘A Critique of Limited Atonement’, in David. L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), pp. 71–127.*

        2. See the final chapter, ‘Why Belief in Unlimited Atonement Matters’, in Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, pp. 765–91, for reasons explaining why this is so.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2026. All rights reserved.

Addendum (6 Jan. 2023).  For blog articles written by the forenamed author wherein issues relating to Calvinistic soteriology are addressed, see the link to the following web page:

• https://drdavidlallen.com/category/calvinism/
  

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.


Latest revisions: converted a portion of par. 1 to n. 1; converted a portion of par. 3 to n. 2; altered the phrase ‘the number for whom Christ died’ to ‘the number for whom Christ procured salvation via his death’ in par. 1 (8 Sept. 2019); made technical alterations in nn. 1 and 2; added ‘inclusive of’ to par. 2 (28 Jul. 2021); slightly modified n. 2 (1 Aug. 2021); added italics in a few places, added to and expanded/revised text in a few places (4 Oct. 2021); added a hyphen to one term in par. 1 (29 Oct. 2021); assorted emendations made (2 Feb. 2022); added a paragraph break (11 Aug. 2022); added two citations to n. 1 (6 Jan. 2023); slightly modified title of article (11 Jan. 2026).

The Principal Point of Contention between Arminian and Calvinistic Soteriologies

J. D. Gallé | Friday, 5 April 2019

        The key difference between Arminian/non-Calvinistic and Calvinistic soteriologies is whether salvation is conditional in nature. Concerning God’s interactions or dealings with humankind, in high Calvinistic theology there is only the appearance of conditionality.
        It is true that Calvinists agree with Arminians that all people without exception are to be urged to repent and believe in the good news of Jesus Christ for salvation. However, in strict Calvinistic theology, the very ‘conditions’ for attaining deliverance from the future wrath, namely repentance and faith, are (1) unconditionally and exclusively bestowed on those individuals whom God has pre-chosen for salvation, and (2) withheld from the rest of humankind. It is impossible, therefore, that the former group will fail to be saved (i.e. the elect), and impossible that the latter group will fail to be lost (i.e. the reprobate, non-elect).
        Such thought is at utter variance with Arminian theology, which maintains that God has not determined which specific individuals will positively respond to the grace of God proffered through the glad tidings of salvation in Jesus Christ. Consequently, any particular human being’s failure to obey the gospel cannot find its origin in an eternal, unconditional divine decree of reprobation.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2022. All rights reserved.

Latest revision(s): modified punctuation in one place (2 Feb. 2022).

John C. Lennox on High Calvinism’s Misconstrual of the Extent of the Atonement

        It is a serious matter to deny the plain teaching of Scripture in the interests of maintaining a theological paradigm, or to try to get round it by special pleading that Christ’s death brings some kind of non-specific temporal benefit to all, or that God has different kinds of love for the elect and non-elect. To say to people, as some do, that Christ died for them in some vague unexplained sense, rather than telling them that Christ died for their sins and that they may be saved by trusting him, is not only insulting to the intelligence, it is insulting to the message of the cross.

John C. Lennox, Determined to Believe? The Sovereignty of God, Freedom, Faith, and Human Responsibility (Oxford, UK: Monarch Books, 2017 / Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), pp. 179–80

Copyright © John C. Lennox, 2017. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase a copy of Lennox’s Determined to Believe? (2017),* see the links to the following websites:

• Monarch Books (Lion Hudson)
  
• Zondervan (HarperCollins Christian Publishing)
  
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

The Theological Implications of Calvinism’s Conception of Doubt

J. D. Gallé | Friday, 12 January 2018

        The weakness of Greg Morse’s article, ‘Does Your Doubt Dishonor God? What No One Says about Weak Faith’ (4 Jan. 2018),[1] is that the author holds many false assumptions, all (or nearly all) of which are Calvinistic in nature. The following declaration, taken from Desiring God’s statement of faith, underlies the theological understanding of Morse’s essay and serves as the foundation of Calvinistic theology in general:

We believe that God, from all eternity, in order to display the full extent of His glory for the eternal and ever-increasing enjoyment of all who love Him, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His will, freely and unchangeably ordain and foreknow whatever comes to pass. (‘God’s Eternal Purpose and Election’, 3.1)[2]

        Taking the above affirmation into account, the basic implications concerning faith and doubt in Calvinistic thought are as follows:

• whether a person is devoid of faith (i.e. an unbeliever), believing in God, or ever will come to believe in God and the good news of Jesus Christ, is a matter of divine foreordination;
• at any given moment of time, the relative strength or weakness of a particular believer’s faith in God, God’s promises, and Jesus Christ his Son, is a matter of divine foreordination;
• if a person fails to persevere in the faith, this merely demonstrates that s/he was a ‘false believer’ all along. One can only fully and finally fall (i.e. apostatise) from a spurious profession of faith.

        In summary, Calvinism maintains that the actual possession of faith and its degree of strength or weakness in the individual believer are attributable solely to God’s eternal decree. If a believer is presently harbouring grave doubts regarding God and his trustworthiness, s/he is doubting in exact accordance with God’s secret, immutable, inscrutable, eternal decree.

Notes

        1. <https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-your-doubt-dishonor-god>
        2. See ‘Desiring God: An Affirmation of Faith’ (6 Oct. 2004), <https://www.deiringgod.org/affirmation-of-faith>.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2018. All rights reserved.

René A. López on Faith as a Gift of God

        [I]f faith is a gift from God, then people should be asking God for regeneration before they can believe. But such a request is completely foreign to the Scriptures. […] Numerous verses call for people to believe, that is, to exercise personal faith (e.g., John 1:12–13; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; Acts 16:31; see also Eph. 2:8; Rom. 3:21–22, 25–26, 28; and 4:3–6). […]
        Another problem with the faith-is-a-gift view relates to sanctification. According to advocates of this view[,] true believers will never fail to live godly lives. This is because God, having infused them with faith, guarantees their sanctification throughout their lives. However, this diminishes the seriousness of the commands of Scripture for believers to pursue holiness. […]
        If faith is a gift, then many commands in Scripture that exhort, command, prompt, and warn believers to live obediently become superfluous because the ultimate end of infused faith guarantees the sanctification of believers without their involvement. Followed to its logical conclusion[,] the gift-of-faith view lessens the urgency of putting forth effort to obey scriptural exhortations. (p. 275)

        The assumption that people are spiritually unresponsive and thus unable to exercise faith for salvation does not stand up to biblical scrutiny. Since faith is never considered a work in the Scriptures, God need not endow individuals with faith in order to avoid a merit-based salvation. Instead, the Bible presents faith for salvation as a human response much like that of a beggar holding out his hand for food. Passages that supposedly teach the gift-of-faith view do not, on careful examination, support that view. (p. 276)

René A. López, ‘Is Faith a Gift from God or a Human Exercise?’, Bibliotheca Sacra 164 (Jul.–Sept. 2007)[1]

Copyright © Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007. All rights reserved.

Note

        1. For the full article, see René A. López, ‘Is Faith a Gift from God or a Human Exercise?’, Bibliotheca Sacra 164 (Jul.–Sept. 2007): 259–76, <https://www.dts.edu/download/publications/bibliotheca/BibSac-Lopez-IsFaithAGiftfromGodoraHumanExercise.pdf>.  (Regrettably, as from no later than Saturday, 18 September 2021, the aforementioned link is broken, thus no longer providing access to López’s article.)  —J. D. Gallé

Terry L. Miethe on Ephesians 2.8 and Faith as a Gift of God

        The classic text, used by Calvinists, to support the assertion that even faith must be given to men by God is Ephesians 2:8, which says “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is a gift of God.” But in the Greek text of this passage there is only one pronoun, not two; and that pronoun does not agree grammatically with the word “faith.” The pronoun is neuter in gender, while the word “faith” is feminine. According to all grammatical rules, the gift cannot be faith! What is referred to in this passage is God’s gracious gift of salvation, which none can merit.

Terry L. Miethe, ‘The Universal Power of the Atonement’, in Clark H. Pinnock (ed.), The Grace of God and the Will of Man (1989; repr., Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1995),[1] p. 77

Copyright © Clark H. Pinnock, 1989. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase the multi-essay volume, The Grace of God and the Will of Man (1989),* see the following websites:

• Bethany House (Baker Publishing Group)
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Note

        1. This volume was originally published by Academie Books, entitled The Grace of God, The Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1989), and republished by Bethany House Publishers in 1995.  —J. D. Gallé

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell on Ephesians 2.8 and Faith as a Gift of God

        [H]ow do individuals enter (and remain) in the redeemed community of God’s people? We enter by faith: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith” (Eph 2:8). All agree that God’s salvation requires a believing human response to God’s gift of grace. But not all agree on the nature of this faith, especially on how faith itself arises. Calvinists are quick to point to other verses where an exact description of faith’s origin appears to be provided: “through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8, emphasis added).
        If faith is not our doing but God’s gift, then the well-known features of Calvinism fall into place. Those who “have faith” have been given faith by God, and those who don’t have faith have not been given faith by God. By this view, faith becomes a function of divine causation operating according to the individual electing will of God.
        But the terms (faith, this, it) that seem so clearly linked in English are not so neatly connected in Greek. The English ear largely depends on word order for making sense of language, and so automatically presumes that this (which “is not from yourselves”) must obviously refer back to faith, since faith immediately precedes this in the word order of the text. But Greek, being an inflected language, actually depends on “tags” that are attached to words for guiding the reader. If our writer had desired readers to connect faith directly to this, these two words should have matched each other as grammatically feminine. We find, however, that this, being neuter in gender, likely points us back several words earlier—to the idea of salvation expressed by the verb. Accordingly, we should read the text with a different line of connections as follows: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this [salvation is] not from yourselves, [this salvation] is the gift of God.”[1]

Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I Am Not a Calvinist (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 77, emphases and square brackets in original[2, 3]

Copyright © Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, 2004. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Walls and Dongell’s Why I Am Not a Calvinist (2004),* see the links to the following websites:

• InterVarsity Press
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Notes

        1. For further refutations of the strict Calvinistic understanding of faith as a gift of God, see Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002), pp. 199–200 (this section may also be found in idem, Set Free! What the Bible Says about Grace [Joplin, MO: College Press, 2009], pp. 227–9); Samuel Fisk, Election and Predestination: Keys to a Clearer Understanding (1997; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), pp. 32–6; Norman L. Geisler, Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election, 2nd edn (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2001), pp. 188–99; and Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2002), pp. 165–7.
        2. For the Calvinistic counterpart to this volume, see Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams, Why I Am Not an Arminian (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004). See also Roger E. Olson, Against Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011); and Michael Horton, For Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011).
        3. To visit Jerry L. Walls’ website, see <https://www.jerrylwalls.com>.  —J. D. Gallé

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

Norman L. Geisler on Philippians 1.29 and Faith as a Gift of God

Philippians 1:29 

        “For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him[,] …” This is taken [by strict or high Calvinists] to mean that faith is a gift of God to certain persons, namely, the ones who are elect.[1]

Response
        There are several indications here that Paul had no such thing in mind. First, the point is simply that God has not only provided us with the opportunity to trust Him but also to suffer for Him. The word “granted” (Greek: echaristhe) means “grace” or “favor.” That is, both the opportunity to suffer for Him and to believe on Him are favors with which God has graced us. Further, Paul is not speaking here of initial faith that brings salvation but of the daily faith and daily suffering of someone who is already Christian. Finally, it is noteworthy that both the suffering and the believing are presented as things that we are to do. He says it is granted for “you” to do this. It was not something God did for them.[2] Both were simply an opportunity God gave them to use “on the behalf of Christ” by their free choice.

Norman L. Geisler, Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election, 2nd edn (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2001), p. 190[3, 4]

Copyright © Norman L. Geisler, 1999, 2001. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase the third edition of Geisler’s Chosen but Free (2010),* see the links to the following websites:

• Bethany House (Baker Publishing Group)
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Notes

        1. That is, persons God unconditionally elected to salvation prior to the creation of the world. In strict Calvinism, repentance and faith are considered divine ‘gifts’ wbicb are bestowed on pre-chosen individuals (‘the elect’) and withheld from others (‘the reprobate’ or ‘non-elect’).
        Being foreordained to eschatological ruin (endless torment or final annihilation), the non-elect remain in unrepentance and unbelief ‘totally unable’ to respond positively to the gospel call for salvation in Jesus Christ throughout the duration of their temporal lives. The non-elect possess neither the will nor the desire to truly seek the forgiveness of their sins through faith in Christ and pursue holiness. In strict Calvinistic thought, the ultimate cause as to why any human should fail to embrace Jesus as Lord and Saviour lies in God’s sovereign decree to unconditionally damn a portion of humankind for his glory. This is believed to be in accordance with the ‘secret’, inscrutable will of God.
        2. That is, the saints in Philippi (see Phil. 1.1b).
        3. Originally published in 1999, Geisler’s Chosen but Free is presently in its third edition with an altered subtitle. See Norman L. Geisler, Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will, 3rd edn (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2010). For a high Calvinistic response to Geisler’s work, see James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal to Norman Geisler’s Chosen but Free, 2nd rev. edn (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2008).
        4. Rightly or wrongly (and I believe the latter to be the case), throughout his volume, Chosen but Free, Geisler refers to his particular soteriological understanding as ‘moderate Calvinism’.  —J. D. Gallé

Notes copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2016, 2021, 2023. All rights reserved.

Addendum (24 Sept. 2022).  Norman Leo Geisler (1932–2019) died on Monday, 1 July 2019, aged eighty-six.

• Legacy
  
• Norman Geisler (official website)
  

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.


Latest revisions: 7 April 2016 (one note added; minor emendations made to note one); 18 September 2016 (minor emendations made to notes); 27 September 2016 (punctuational alteration made to n. 4); 17 February 2018 (assorted minor emendations); emended n. 4 (6 Oct. 2021); minor emendations made to n. 1; added a comma in n. 4 (8 Apr. 2023).

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).

Thomas R. Schreiner’s Perspective on Apostasy: an Arminian Analysis

J. D. Gallé | Friday, 26 June 2015

        In his volume on perseverance, Run to Win the Prize (2010), Thomas Schreiner declares: ‘The admonitions and threats in the Scriptures address the issue of eternal life. […] They are addressed to those who have received the Holy Spirit, to those who are genuine Christians.’[1] ‘I have argued thus far that the warnings in the NT are directed to believers, and they threaten final judgment.’[2] Along with all Arminians who adhere to the doctrine of conditional security, I can give my wholehearted assent to these statements. Unfortunately, I cannot likewise endorse Schreiner’s understanding of perseverance and apostasy. Schreiner writes:

[T]he elect[3] and those in the new covenant always heed the warnings [of Scripture]. God loses none of those who belong to him. Just as all the elect believe the gospel when it is proclaimed to them, so too all those who are foreknown and predestined will certainly be glorified. God’s promise that all those who are his will persevere does not exclude the need to heed the warnings. As we have seen, heeding the warnings is the means by which believers are preserved on the last day.[4]

        According to Schreiner, all who have been initially saved will be finally saved. Any individual who has been united to Christ by faith will never become an unbeliever again. The inevitable conclusion is this: apostasy remains an impossibility for ‘genuine Christians’. Schreiner assures us that the various ‘admonitions and threats’ contained throughout scripture serve as ‘the means’ whereby believers are infallibly preserved from condemnation on the day of judgement. As for those who may have appeared to have borne the marks of a Christian for a season but nevertheless defected from the faith, Schreiner informs us that such persons were never actually in a saving relationship with Christ to begin with. 

Those who fall away were never truly Christians. […] Perseverance is the mark of genuineness, and those who do not persevere reveal that they were not genuinely part of the people of God. […] No one who is truly elect will ever fall away, for those who do apostatize reveal that they were never genuinely saved.[5]

        In the end, the only apostates Schreiner allows for are phoneys and false professors of the faith, persons who ‘were not genuinely part of the people of God’. Faux believers may apostatise; true believers cannot. For Schreiner, failure to persevere only proves a professed convert’s lack of ‘genuineness’. All apostates without exception are persons who ‘were never genuinely saved’.
        In summary, Schreiner holds the two following propositions as equally valid: (1) believers are ‘preserved’ from eternal condemnation by heeding the scriptural admonishments warning against the danger of committing apostasy; (2) it is impossible for believers to commit apostasy and so be finally condemned.[6]

Conclusion

        It is not enough to assert that ‘genuine Christians’ will not apostatise. No, according to Schreiner’s strict Calvinistic perspective, the possibility of apostasy itself cannot be actualised. For Schreiner, there is simply no possibility of such an occurrence. In the case of ‘genuine Christians’, then, apostasy is relegated to the hypothetical realm,[7] for it is something that those who are ‘genuinely saved’ neither will nor can commit.
        The logical implication of Schreiner’s view is that the very means by which God’s people are said to be infallibly preserved from damnation via the word of God are dubious at best, and completely disingenuous at worst. Exhorting believers to do that which they cannot fail to do (i.e. persevere), and severely warning them against committing the impossible (i.e. apostatising) with the threat of eternal condemnation if they should fail to continue in the faith (which, again, cannot happen according to Schreiner), naturally calls into question the wisdom, goodness, and truthfulness of God and his Word.[8]
        It is much wiser to accept the possibility of apostasy as real in the present age.[9] Yet in so doing, one would have to accept salvation as being truly conditional in nature and jettison the entire Calvinistic soteriological paradigm as spurious.[10] In my judgement this should be done sooner rather than later.

Notes

        1. Thomas R. Schreiner, Run to Win the Prize: Perseverance in the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), p. 113. See also idem and Ardel B. Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001).
        2. Schreiner, Run to Win the Prize, p. 104.
        3. Schreiner routinely uses the term ‘elect’ as a shorthand designation for persons that God has unconditionally chosen for salvation before the creation of the world. As Arminians affirm conditional election to salvation, we take issue with Schreiner’s consistent use of the scriptural term ‘elect’ as more or less synonymous with the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election.
        4. Schreiner, Run to Win the Prize, p. 113.
        5. Schreiner, Run to Win the Prize, p. 106.
        6. Schreiner’s erroneous understanding of perseverance as inevitable and apostasy as impossible appear to stem from an a priori commitment to Calvinist double predestination.
        7. Albeit unwittingly.
        8. I am aware that Schreiner would disagree (that is, unless or until he should become an Arminian).
        9. For Arminian perspectives on perseverance and apostasy, see, for example, Gareth L. Cockerill, ‘A Wesleyan Arminian View’, in Herbert W. Bateman IV (ed.), Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007), pp. 257–92; I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1969; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008); Robert Shank, Life in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Perseverance, 2nd edn (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1989).
        10. To that end, see, for example, F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2011); Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2002); Clark H. Pinnock and John D. Wagner (eds), Grace for All: The Arminian Dynamics of Salvation (Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2015); Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I Am Not a Calvinist (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004).

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2021, 2022, 2023. All rights reserved.

Addendum (26 Sept. 2022; 13 Feb. 2023).  This article was published on the Society of Evangelical Arminians’ website on Wednesday, 5 August 2015, written in American English (apart from ‘judgement’ and ‘phoneys’). See the link to the following web page: 

• <http://evangelicalarminians.org/j-d-galle-thomas-r-schreiners-perspective-on-apostasy-an-arminian-analysis>

Lastest revisions: 3 July 2015 (one note added); 14 December 2015 (a few minor alterations and additions made to the text); 17 March 2016 (alteration of one word); 7 April 2016 (minor emendations); 28 June 2016 (punctuation added to par. 1); 16 September 2016 (minor emendations); 22 February 2017 (emended punctuation in a few places); 9 and 25 February 2018 (minor editorial revisions); slightly emended nn. 9 and 10 (17 Nov. 2021), slightly modified citation in n. 1 (2 Aug. 2022); corrected error in n. 9 (26 Sept. 2023).

Richard Watson on John 3.16–18 and the Impossibility of a Limited Atonement

        “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish.” Now, if the world here means the elect world, or the elect not yet called out of it, then it is affirmed that “whosoever,” of this elect body, believeth should not perish; which plainly implies, that some of the elect might not believe, and therefore perish, contrary to their doctrine.[1] This absurd consequence is still clearer from the verses which immediately follow. John iii, 17, 18, “For God sent not his Son into the world, to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already.” Now here we must take the term “world,” either extensively[2] for all mankind or limitedly[3] for the elect. If the former, then all men “through him may be saved,” but only through faith: he therefore, of this world that believeth may be saved; but he of this world that believeth not is condemned already. The sense here is plain and consistent; but if, on the other hand, we take “the world” to mean the elect only, then he of this elect world that “believeth not is condemned;” so that the restricted interpretation necessarily supposes, that elect persons may remain in unbelief, and be lost. The same absurdity will follow from a like interpretation of the general commission. Either “all the world” and “every creature,” mean every man, or the elect only. If the former, it follows, that he of this “world,” any individual among those included in the phase, “every creature,” who believes, “shall be saved,” or, not believing, “shall be damned:”[4] if the latter, then he of the elect, any individual of the elect, who believes, “shall be saved,” and any individual of the elect who believes not, “shall be damned.” Similar absurdities might be brought out from other passages; but if these are candidly weighed, it will abundantly appear, that texts so plain and explicit cannot be turned into such consequences by any true method of interpretation, and that they must, therefore, be taken in their obvious sense, which unequivocally expresses the universality of the atonement.[5]

Richard Watson, Theological Institutes: Or, a View of the Evidences, Doctrines, Morals, and Institutions of Christianity, 2 vols. (New York, NY: Lane & Scott, 1850), 2.291–2, emphases in original

Notes

        1. ‘[T]heir doctrine’, namely strict or high Calvinism’s doctrine of limited atonement. This teaching is commonly referred to as particular (or definite) atonement by its proponents. According to the doctrine of limited atonement, Christ died in a salvational sense exclusively for those God unconditionally elected for salvation prior to the creation of the world. High Calvinistic theology denies that the non-elect (or ‘reprobate’) were ever intended to be made partakers of Christ’s benefits. In simple terms, strict Calvinists deny that Christ died for all persons without exception because God never intended to save the non-elect.
        Limited atonement is closely linked to the doctrine of unconditional election to salvation. Calvinists believe that those who are not saved were unconditionally reprobated (i.e. foreordained to damnation) from eternity as a result of God’s inscrutable, eternal decree.
        2. That is, universally, inclusively.
        3. That is, exclusively, particularly.
        4. Mark 16.15–16 (see also Matt. 28.19–20; Lk. 24.46–47; Acts 1.8).
        5. In the quotation above, it should be evident that Watson seeks to refute a strict Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement by demonstrating its absurdity in the light of scriptural texts such as John 3.16–18 and Mark 16.15–16. The form of argumentation Watson utilises here is referred to as the argumentum ad absurdum (argument to absurdity) or reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity).  —J. D. Gallé

Notes copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2021. All rights reserved.

Addendum (27 Sept. 2022; 29 Aug. 2023).  As from 2018, Lexham Press have published a non-facsimile reprint of Methodist Richard Watson’s significant, nineteenth-century work of systematic theology, Theological Institutes.* Watson’s Theological Institutes is the first systematic theology to have been written from a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective.

        My sole criticism of Lexham Press’ reprint is that, considering the retail price they are commanding for their printed edition, the two volumes ought to be hardbound in format rather than paperback. Nevertheless, in order to view or purchase the aforementioned two-volume set, see the links to the following websites:

• Lexham Press
  
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon
  

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.


Latest revisions: 16 November 2016 (added a comma in n. 1); 17 February 2018 (converted seven colons to full stops); 19 and 28 February 2018 (minor emendations); 22 May 2019 (slightly modified nn. 2 and 3); altered one word in first note (23 Jun. 2021); slightly altered scriptural abbreviations in n. 4 (19 Nov. 2021); altered one word in n. 1 (8 Dec. 2021).

I. Howard Marshall on Limited Atonement and Penal Substitution

        Despite such statements in classical documents as that Christ “made a full perfect and sufficient oblation for the sins of the whole world” (Book of Common Prayer), and the clear declaration of the New Testament that “Christ gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Tim. 2:6), there have been some attempts to tie the doctrine of penal substitution to a doctrine of limited or particular atonement; some scholars hold that penal substitution can be defended only on the basis that Christ acts as substitute only for those who are actually saved by his death rather than being a saviour who makes an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) in accordance with the desire of God that all might be saved (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4–6; 2 Pet. 3:9). Otherwise, it is argued, in the case of those who are not saved, God would have demanded the penalty twice, once from Christ and once from themselves when they suffer the penalty of disobedience. […][1]
        However this objection is without any force because it assumes a kind of mathematical equivalence between the death of Christ and the penalty due to sinners; there is nothing unjust about penalizing offenders who refuse to accept the offer of an amnesty. […] The doctrine of penal substitution is not part of a package which also contains as essential the concepts of particular election[2] and limited (or definite) atonement. “None need perish; all may live, for Christ has died” (Sanders, W. In The Methodist Hymnbook [London: Methodist Conference Office, 1933], No. 315). Sadly, however, it is not inevitable that all will respond positively when the gospel news is sounding.

I. Howard Marshall, Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2007), pp. 62–3 n. 45[3]

Copyright © Divinity School of Chung Chi College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2007. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Marshall’s Aspects of the Atonement (2007),* see the links to the following websites:

• Paternoster (Authentic Media)
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Notes

        1. ‘[T]he penalty of disobedience’ being the final punishment of the unrepentant, whether conceived of in terms of endless torment or final annihilation.
        2. That is, unconditional election to salvation. The corollary doctrine is unconditional reprobation. High Calvinistic theology maintains that God unconditionally chose which specific individuals would be saved and damned prior to the creation of the world. This doctrine is commonly referred to as double predestination.
        3. The pagination of the paperback edition (ISBN-13: 978-1-84227-549-8) of Aspects of the Atonement differs from the hardback edition (ISBN-13: 978-1-60657-024-1) . In the hardback edition the above quotation may be found on pp. 70–1.  —J. D. Gallé

Addendum.  Ian Howard Marshall (1934–2015) died on Saturday, 12 December 2015, aged eighty-one.

• Wikipedia

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

F. Leroy Forlines on the Assurance of Salvation

        John 10:28, 29 gives the Christian strong grounds to stand on. In Christ he has eternal life and will never perish. When a person is saved, he is baptized into Christ’s body; and as long as he is in Christ, he has eternal life and will never perish. This is what we have in Christ, and we are also promised that no one can take us out of Christ. Salvation is a personal matter between the believer and Christ. No outsider can, in any way, take the believer out of Christ. If he is ever taken out, it will be an act of the Father as husbandman, as is set forth in John 15:2, and that only on the grounds of not abiding in Christ (John 15:6). To be in Christ means to have eternal life, and no outside force nor combined forces can take us out of Christ.
        Another ground of security is that God will not cast us out at the least little thing we do. We are saved by faith and kept by faith. We are lost, after we are once saved, only by shipwreck of faith.
        This view, as we have given it, gives a person all the assurance he needs to have joy. It does not keep him in fear of constant falling; yet, at the same time, he is aware of the fact that it is possible to fall. It also keeps salvation on a faith basis instead of mixing it with works. It is not just a line of reasoning, but has the support of the Scriptures.

Leroy Forlines, The Doctrine of Perseverance (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 1986),[1] pp. 17–8, emphasis in original

Copyright © Randall House Publications, 1986. All rights reserved.

Note

        1. Unfortunately, this booklet is currently out of print. For further reading on the assurance of salvation from Arminian perspectives, see Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002), pp. 375–87; idem, Set Free! What the Bible Says about Grace (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2009), pp. 295–316*; F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2011), pp. 350–3; and Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2002), pp. 197–208 (repr. in idem, Understanding Assurance and Salvation [Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2006], pp. 1–20).  —J. D. Gallé

        * Jack Cottrell’s twenty-first chapter in idem, The Faith Once for All, ‘Assurance of Salvation’, is essentially the same as, although not identical to, the fifteenth chapter, ‘Assurance of Salvation’, in Jack Cottrell, Set Free! (as noted by Cottrell himself in idem, Set Free!, p. 295 n. 1).

Addendum (24 Sept. 2022).  Franklin Leroy Forlines (1926–2020) died on Tuesday, 15 December 2020, aged ninety-four.

• Helwys Society Forum
• Tribute Archive (obituary)
  

Latest revisions: 2 January 2017 (emended pagination for one volume in note); 25 December 2017 (converted an en rule to a colon); 28 February 2018 (slightly modified note); added to note (8 Mar. 2022).

Jack Cottrell on Faith as a Gift of God

        Some mistakenly conclude that Eph 2:8 says faith is a gift: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” This is disproved, though, by the rules of Greek grammar. The Greek word for “faith” (pistis) is feminine in gender; the pronoun referring to the gift (“that,” touto) is neuter. If it were referring back to faith, it too would be feminine in form. (There is no word in the Greek corresponding to the pronoun “it.”) This verse actually shows that faith is not a gift since grace and faith are carefully distinguished. We are saved by grace, as God’s part; but through faith, as our part, as distinct from the grace given. Faith is not a gift of grace and the result of regeneration; it is a response to grace and a prerequisite to regeneration.

 

Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002), p. 200, emphases in original[1]

Copyright © The College Press Publishing Company, 2002. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Cottrell’s The Faith Once for All (2002),* see the links to the following websites:

• College Press Publishing Company
• The Christian Restoration Association
  
• Christianbook
• Amazon 

Note

        1. Jack Cottrell briefly interacts with other scriptural texts sometimes purported to teach that repentance (Gk: μετάνοια, metanoia) and faith (Gk: πίστις, pistis) are ‘gifts of God’ in idem, The Faith Once for All, pp. 199–200. The aforementioned section also may be found in idem, Set Free! What the Bible Says about Grace (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2009), pp. 227–9. (To visit Jack Cottrell’s official website, see the following link: <https://www.jackcottrell.com>.)  —J. D. Gallé

Addendum (20 Sept. 2022).  Jack Warren Cottrell (1938–2022) died on Friday, 16 September 2022, aged eighty-four.

• Fitch Denney Funeral Home
• Jack Cottrell (official website)

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

F. Leroy Forlines on the Sovereignty of God in Salvation: Upon Whom Does God Desire to Demonstrate His Mercy in Romans 9.15?

        When we read in Rom. 9:15 that God will have mercy and compassion on whomever He wills, it behooves us to ask: On whom does God will to show mercy and compassion? Once it is decided that the mercy and compassion under consideration is that shown in salvation, the answer is easy.

        God told Isaiah whom He wanted to have mercy on when He said, “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy [italics mine] upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon” (55:7).
        We certainly do not have to list an array of references from the N.T. in order to identify those to whom God wishes to give the mercy of salvation. Let's take the answer given by Paul and Silas to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:30,31).
        When God chooses the one who believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior to show his mercy in salvation, He is choosing whom He wills. Such a decision can in no way be viewed as a decision that God is forced to make. The whole idea of salvation was God’s idea from the outset. He could have chosen to have left the whole human race in sin without offering salvation had He chosen to do so. He planned to provide and offer salvation to lost mankind long before (in eternity past) man felt the pangs of being lost. It was not even in response to man’s pleading (much less demanding) that God chose to offer redemption.
        The provision of salvation through the death and righteousness of Christ was totally God’s idea and totally God’s provision. It came about as a result of His own free acts. The decision to offer salvation on the condition of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior originated with God and no one else. The decision to commission believers to take the gospel into the world was God’s decision, not man’s. The decision for the Holy Spirit to work in men's hearts in connection with the preached Word was God’s decision.
        The whole plan of salvation from beginning to end is the work and plan of God. God is in charge. When salvation is offered on the condition of faith in Christ, that in no way weakens the words, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” God’s sovereignty is fully in control in this view.

 

F. Leroy Forlines, Romans, ed. Robert E. Picirilli, The Randall House Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 1987), p. 268, emphases and square brackets in original

Copyright © F. Leroy Forlines, 1987. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Forlines’ Randall House Bible Commentary on Romans,* see the links to the following websites:

• Randall House Publications
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Addendum (24 Sept. 2022).  Franklin Leroy Forlines (1926–2020) died on Tuesday, 15 December 2020, aged ninety-four.

• Helwys Society Forum
• Tribute Archive (obituary)

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.