In the last BLOG I tried to show some important aspects of Arminian theology from the published writings of Arminius in which Peter Bertius gives an assessment and overview of Arminius. I will give part of a quote from it and deal with it the rest of this BLOG. “Because he condensed and applied them in such a manner as to make them combine in one grand and harmonious scheme, in which all the attributes and perfections of the Deity are secured to him in a clearer and more obvious manner than by Calvinism, and in which man is still left in possession of his free-will, which alone places him in the condition of an accountable being.” Notice that in the view of Bertius the attributes and perfections of God are secured to him in a clearer and more obvious manner than by Calvinism. Why does Bertius think that is true? Because man is still left in possession of his free-will. This is of utter importance and we must note that this seems to be the most important issue in Arminian theology.
What I am trying to deal with in this BLOG is the importance of the doctrine of the will and of the real nature of theology and different theologies. These things are of tremendous importance and are far more than just a small difference between men. The divide between Arminian theology and Reformed theology is actually quite enormous if people are willing to really look at the real differences and not just agree on a few words. A few months ago I gave a quote from William Cunningham which I will quote again: “This subject of free-will is, as it were, the connecting link between the doctrines of original sin and of divine grace-between man’s natural condition as fallen, involved in guilt and depravity, and the way in which they are restored to favour, to holiness, and happiness.” This is a massively important point. While the doctrine of the will is not thought to be all that important by many people, it is the connecting link between the doctrine of original sin and of divine grace. On the one hand we can say that what some believe about original sin and of divine grace will determine what they believe about the will. On the other hand, what some believe concerning the doctrine of the will seems to of necessity determine what they believe about the doctrines of original sin and of divine grace. This is a point that cannot be stressed too much. If a person tenaciously holds to free-will, that person will adjust biblical data and biblical doctrines so that s/he can hold to that doctrine and claim that the other doctrines are biblical.
What the Bertius quote (from above) shows us is that people also do that with the character and attributes of God. In fact, however, whatever we do to twist the Gospel to fit our conceptions also twists the character of God. The Gospel is nothing less than the shining forth of the glory of God in the face of Christ (II Cor 4:4-6). Cunningham tells us that the subject of free-will is the connecting link between the doctrines of original sin and of divine grace. In other words, what we believe about free will is at the very least a determining factor about what we believe about the other doctrines. Bertius then shows us how this doctrine of the will is a determining factor in what we believe about the character and attributes of God. This is what should be the chief objection to a consistent Arminian theology. It is not the doctrine of free-will in and of itself; it is what the doctrine of free will does to the biblical teaching about God. When the doctrine of God is, shall we say, adjusted to make room for free-will, the Gospel as the expression of the glory of God in Christ is adjusted as well. Again, we are not talking about a minor issue; we are talking about the difference between the Gospel and the non-Gospel and the difference between the true God and an idol. If we apply the Arminian conception of free-will in a consistent way, we cannot have a God that has an exhaustive and explicit knowledge of the future. When the Arminian conception of free-will is applied in a consistent way, the Gospel is not entirely and completely of grace and grace alone. That consistent conception of free-will denies total depravity and therefore whether the Gospel of grace is applied to or by man.
Some might accuse me of going too far, though I would say they do not go far enough. We are to be driven by Scripture and God’s glory rather than by political correctness. If something is a different Gospel, then it must be set out as such if we are to be faithful to God and His Gospel. John 1:12-13 shows that regeneration is by the will of God and not by the will of man. To reverse that and say that it is God’s will that responds to the will of man is to say a totally different thing about the Gospel and the character of God. If we say that man is not totally depraved what we must say is that man is able to respond to God in some way. That would leave us with the position of God responding to man rather than what Romans 3:24-27 teaches us. We are taught there that the cause of God saving human beings is not of man in any way but is of His grace. This leaves man with no reason to boast at all. The doctrine of free-will leaves man some room to boast and is a doctrine of God saving mostly by grace. That is a different God and a different Gospel. There is an infinite difference between what is infinite and what is finite. The Gospel of all grace is the infinite grace of an infinite God. A “gospel” of mostly grace is certainly a finite grace.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment