The issues surrounding the BLOGS on Morris Chapman’s article in SBC Life deserve an answer and a response. For another critique of his article, click here.
First, I am convinced that the Gospel was seriously compromised by what the article said and implied. Second, I should have been more careful in being sure that the BLOGS were not a personal attack. They were not intended as a personal attack but were written as a defense of the Gospel of grace alone. I made more of a personal reference to the writer at least once. For the personal reference I apologize and for any personal slight that I made. The intent was and should have been kept to the issue at hand. Third, there were some serious misunderstandings of the BLOGS. I was accused of hyper-Calvinism. I strongly deny this but I personally think that those men have the right to say what they did on this particular site and appreciate the fact that they obviously meant what they said. If we leave things as intellectual arguments alone, we show that we do not love the truth. While I am convinced that I am not in reality what they say, I do appreciate their willingness to stand up and say what they said with conviction. Fourth, there have been some concerns raised in some circles about the tenor of the way the discussion progressed or digressed. It has been suggested that we try to keep a better tenor and tone of the discussions. Therefore, there will be a few more rules set out in the future about things like this.
Next, it has been suggested that the Spurgeon Baptist Association of Churches was not accurately represented by what I wrote. Some said that that they were not represented and others said that they were represented. It is indeed my personal views and writings rather than what everybody in Spurgeon believes. I personally believe that it is very healthy to discuss theological issues and even butt heads in order to get at the truth. If we are so sensitive that we cannot be wrong, then it is possible that what we believe as true is also from a motive of self. We are to love the truth and pursue the truth even if it means wrestling with ourselves and others. We are also supposed to speak the truth in love, but then again we have no love in reality if we have no truth. It takes love to have truth and truth to have love. We must always remember that we are to love God first and as an overflow of knowing Him in truth and love, we will love in truth.
Last, if anyone has a problem with what I write, please contact me personally or respond to the BLOG itself here. It is biblical to go to the person you have the problem with and not go to others first.
Hopefully with the air somewhat cleared, we can get back to the issues that need to be dealt with. What we have to do at this point is to look at some of the major issues. The first is responsibility. We need to look and see how Reformed theologians and pastors and Arminian theologians and pastors have used this word or concept. Even more than that, we have to get a grasp of the teaching on inability in order to see the real issue. It is only when these issues are seen in a fuller sense will the real problems with the statement of “the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man” or “the grace of God and the responsibility of man” as “necessary elements in salvation” can be really seen. These are not silly little issues and this is not wrangling about words. This will take several BLOGS and the whole position will not be seen in just one or perhaps not even a few. The heart of this argument (giving reasons) is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While you may not believe that, that is what Luther and the Reformers said. It is also the teaching of Jesus and Paul. It is much of what the Gospel of grace alone is all about.
The Arminian use of the word “responsibility” has meant and still includes the meaning of ability. Over and over again we are told that to have true responsibility a person has to have ability. If you want to search this out, simply go and read any book on Arminian theology and you will find it to be so. By definition an Arminian is one that believes in free will which in that sense includes the ability of the person to do what God commands. Listed below are quotes from several sites where you may read this exact point along with a few quotes. (Note, I am not necessarily endorsing all of the content on each of these sites but simply using what is written there in an attempt to show the difference). If you had any doubts before, surely these quotes will wipe those away. Calvinists and Arminians differ on what “responsibility” means and in fact it is at the heart of the issues between the two theological camps. This is not just an issue about wrangling with words, it is an issue that is at the heart of the Gospel of grace alone.
“Arminians deny the total depravity of man, in that they hold that the will of man is free and has the ability to choose Christ and the salvation that is in Him. Such teaching is false and delusive. The will of man is free only to choose according to his moral nature, and as his nature is under the dominion of sin, man chooses accordingly. “Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation-, so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.” (‘Confession of Faith,’ Ch. 9, Sec. 3). ‘The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them.”
Man’s Inability and Responsibility
Arminians hold that responsibility infers ability, and therefore maintain that when sinners are called upon to believe and to repent, that they have the power to do so. Such teaching is false to the core. The call given in the gospel, and given by all who preach the gospel in its fullness, to believe and repent is the outward call. It is the prerogative of the Holy Spirit alone in His internal and regenerating work to make the outward call effectual. ‘Many are called, but few are chosen.’ Although man through the fall lost his ability, he is still responsible and accountable to God, and because responsible he is duty bound to make use of the outward means and ordinances appointed by God, and the efficiency of which is dependent alone on His power. God has established a connection between the means and the end desired. He commands us to use them, and He has promised to bless them. To separate the means from the end, which the Lord has ordained for the salvation of sinners is to be guilty of separating what the Lord has joined. A despising and a neglecting of the means is a despising of the salvation the means bring before us. ‘And how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?
Reference: click here.
III. AN EVALUATION OF THE DOCTRINES At the heart of the controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism is the emphasis on the sovereignty of God by the Calvinists and on the free will of man, or human responsibility, by the Arminians. Arminian theology teaches that man has free will and that God will never interrupt or take that free will away, that God has obligated Himself to respect the free moral agency and capacity of free choice with which He created us. Calvinism, on the other hand, emphasizes that God is in total control of everything, and that nothing can happen that He does not plan and direct, including man’s salvation. Both doctrinal positions are logical, both have Scriptures to back up each of their five points, and both are, in my opinion, partially right and partially wrong. As Philip Schaff put it in his History of the Christian Church, “Calvinism emphasizes divine sovereignty and free grace; Arminianism emphasizes human responsibility. The one restricts the saving grace to the elect; the other extends it to all men on the condition of faith. Both are right in what they assert; both are wrong in what they deny. If one important truth is pressed to the exclusion of another truth of equal importance, it becomes an error, and loses its hold upon the conscience. The Bible gives us a theology which is more human than Calvinism and more divine than Arminianism, and more Christian than either of them. ” (New York, Charles Scribner’s & Son, 1910, VIII 815 f)
Reference:click here.
1) Arminianism denies the imputation of sin; no one is condemned eternally because of original sin. Man is condemned because of his own sins. This appears at variance with Romans 5:12-21. (2) Though variously interpreted, Arminians generally teach that the effects of the Fall were erased through prevenient grace bestowed on all men, enabling individuals to cooperate with God in salvation. There is, however, no clear indication of this kind of prevenient grace in Scripture. (3) Arminians teach that the Fall did not destroy man’s free will; furthermore, they teach that prevenient grace moves upon the heart of the unbeliever, enabling him to cooperate with God in salvation by an act of the will. While it is true that man must bear responsibility in responding to the gospel (John 5:40), man’s will has been affected because of the Fall (Rom. 3:11-12; Eph. 2:1); man needs God’s grace in order to be saved (Eph. 2:8; Acts 13:48; 16:14). (4) Arminians relate predestination to God’s foreknowledge of man’s actions. They stress that God knew beforehand who would believe, and He elected those. In Arminianism, election and predestination are conditioned by faith. The word foreknowledge (Gk. prognosis), however, is basically equivalent to election (cf. Rom. 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:20). The data of God’s foreknowledge originates in advanced planning, not in advanced information. (5) Arminianism stresses human participation and responsibility in salvation: recognition of sin, turning from sin, repentance, confession, and faith. For Arminianism, repentance involves change of actions, forsaking sins, whereas the biblical word repentance (Gk. metanoia) means “change of mind.” Although the stress on human responsibilities is significant, if it involves multiple conditions for salvation, this stress becomes a serious matter because the purity of salvation-by-grace-alone is then at stake. The sole condition of salvation stressed in scores of Scriptures is faith in Christ (John 3:16, 36; Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9, etc.).
Reference: click here.
In some inexplicable way God has seen fit to incorporate human freedom and responsibility into His all-inclusive plan. Even though the Lord is in sovereign control of the details in His creation, He never forces any man to do anything against his will. The fact that He judges sin means that He is not responsible for the commission of the sins He judges. When a person sins it is because he has freely chosen to do so. Similarly, when someone is confronted with the terms of the gospel, he can freely choose to accept or reject Christ’s offer of forgiveness of sins. Because it is free choice, he will be held responsible for the decision he makes (see John 12:48). In my view, personal and moral responsibility require free will. While I disagree with those who say that our wills are in total bondage, I am not implying in my use of the terms “freedom” and “free will” that humans are autonomous. We do not control the fundamental realities of our lives (e.g., our time on earth and our abilities), and yet our choices are ours.
Reference: click here.
At the heart of the controversies between Calvinism and Arminianism is the emphasis on the sovereignty of God by the Calvinists and on the sovereignty (free will) of man – or human responsibility – by the Arminians. Calvinism emphasizes that God is in total control of everything and that nothing can happen that He does not plan and direct, including man’s salvation. Arminianism teaches that man has free will and that God will never interrupt or take that free will away, and that God has obligated Himself to respect the free moral agency and capacity of free choice with which He created us.
Reference: click here.
According to the Calvinist belief, man’s inclination to sin has ensnared his will. Even though he can make choices according to his nature, man’s character has been so corrupted that he can never choose what is pure. Calvinists point to verses in Mark 7:21-23 and Romans 3:10-12, which say that man’s heart is utterly wicked and that no one seeks God because they have all wandered down the wrong path. Thus, man cannot accept Christ without God’s intervention. In essence, Calvinism states that man only has the free will to choose evil and that he does not have the capacity to choose God. On the other hand, Arminianism says that man’s sinful nature has not completely hindered his ability to choose God. Rather, Arminians believe that man can freely choose good or evil. They read John 3:16 and emphasize the phrase “whoever believes in Him”, as it seems to indicate man has a choice to accept or reject Christ. In John 7:17, the prophet writes, “If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” This highlights man’s capacity to choose God. Arminians say that, through choice and faith, man can receive God’s gift of salvation.
Reference: click here.
As you can easily see from the sites and quotes above there is a huge difference in the way that Arminians and Calvinists view the word “responsibility.” The difference is so vast that when applied consistently these positions teach a different gospel. If a person writes the “sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man,” he might mean two very different and distinct things. One view is consistent with the Gospel of grace alone. The other view is consistent with grace and works being the gospel at hand. When dealing with differing gospels or differing views of the Gospel, there is no just wrangling with words. This is a deadly serious issue and eternal issues are at stake. We must treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment