God Loves… Himself

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”

A modern editor of Luther’s great work underscores this fact: “Whoever puts this book down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain.”

While it is so common for people to be unaware of the vital nature of the doctrine of the bondage of the will, it is also as uncommon to find someone who has thought about the will but thinks of it as important. But, if the quote above is right, the whole of evangelical theology (older theology, theology of the Reformation) falls when this teaching is not taught or is simply not thought of as important. I would add that in places where it is nothing but an intellectual amusement or perhaps an object of intellectual exercises it will also not be dealt with as it should. The doctrines of the Gospel of grace alone, of what Christ has accomplished by grace alone, and what the Holy Spirit must do by grace alone if any would be saved all fall without the doctrine of the bondage of the will.

The nature of faith is this; it is the going out of the soul to another, and to see all-sufficiency in another, and to fetch all from another. To have supply in a man’s self, and to see all-sufficiency in Christ, those two cannot stand together. So that while the soul is thus possessed with his own sufficiency to procure ease to himself, it is certain this stops the work of faith, and hinders the pouring in of faith into the soul, whereby you should go wholly out of yourselves, and fetch all from Christ. Therefore mark now what follows. As contrition took away the former hindrance, so the Lord hath this work of humiliation, whereby He shuts back this bolt, and makes him to see an utter inability in himself to procure or receive any good. Thomas Hooker, The Soul’s Implantation, International Outreach, reprinted 2014)

Thomas Hooker, a wonderful writer from the 1600’s, in the paragraph just above, shows us just how the older evangelical theology stands or falls with the bondage of the will. True faith must always have an object and true faith must have a sufficient object. If true faith is in Christ alone, then a true faith must not be in self to do anything, but instead is to see Christ alone as all-sufficient. A true faith will find no sufficiency in self at all. As long as the soul has any hope (faith) in self, it cannot have a true faith in Christ. The soul that has some hope in self will look to self instead of look totally to Christ alone. True faith must be in Christ alone for all things and that includes faith and hope. True faith must come from or be accompanied with “an utter inability in himself to procure or receive any good.”

The last sentence in the previous paragraph (quote from Thomas Hooker) is of tremendous importance. Not only is it the case that unless man has an utter inability in himself to procure something man will not have true faith, but it is also the case that without the recognition of our own utter inability to receive apart from grace man cannot receive anything. True faith is necessary to receive grace, but one cannot have true faith to receive grace until man has lost all hope and trust in self to procure and receive any good. Romans 4:16 tells us that it is by faith in order that it may be by grace, so if hope or trust in our own will is the opposite of faith, it is clear that we must denounce the ability of our own will in order to have true faith.

Without going into great detail, we can simply point to the great danger of Arminian teaching concerning free-will if what Thomas Hooker and Scripture sets out as true. The Arminian teaches that others must make a choice of the free-will which means that the will be free of all things and it must make the choice. This tells us that the soul is looking to itself for something rather than Christ and rather than knowing that it has a total inability to procure or receive anything spiritual or good. The soul cannot pretend to look to itself and to Christ as that is not possible. One must look to Christ alone or one cannot look to Christ at all. The soul is either able to procure or receive to some degree by something it does or it cannot procure or receive anything of itself and Christ must do it all. This is the difference between Arminianism and old Calvinism, though it may not be thought of as all that important to many today. However, it is the difference between the Gospel of grace alone and a gospel of works with grace to help. The Gospel of grace alone stands with the doctrine of the bondage of the will, but falls with the teaching of free-will. We must wake up and see the great danger.

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”

A modern editor of Luther’s great work underscores this fact: “Whoever puts this book down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain.”

In the first quote above the author is trying to get people to see that what is known as Calvinism in the modern day is not the Calvinism of the old days. He is trying to get people to see that when the modern Calvinists believe in a wholesale way that Arminians and Pelagians are sound Christians and are brothers and sisters, they are not in line with the older teaching. Packer and Johnson wrote the introduction to the 1957 publication of Luther’s Bondage of the Will and they assert quite strongly that evangelical theology (at the time, theology of the Reformation) stood or fell with the doctrine of the bondage of the will and the failure to realize that was to read Luther’s work in vain. This is a very important statement as it is quite right. But of course the term “evangelical” has also changed from the time of the Reformation until today as well.

If I understand things correctly, it was the Calvinists of the day (Reformation time) who were referred to as evangelical. This is to say, then, that biblical Calvinism stands are falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will. When people do not see it as important or even vital, as indeed Luther and Calvin did, then evangelical theology has changed from what they taught and is something else. It has to be clear to all that what was once evangelical theology in the Reformation is not the evangelical theology of the 1900’s, but even worse what is thought of as evangelical theology in the modern day is not even close to that of the 1900’s. What we simply must see (and “must” is not used lightly at this point) is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ (evangelical theology) is not the same teaching when one denies the bondage of the will as it is when one holds to it strongly.

The doctrine of depravity as understood by the Reformers was that men are so depraved that they are helpless and have no ability to do one thing in the spiritual realm. Just below is how the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 6, Sections II & IV put it):

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

The bondage of the will is not just a nasty doctrine that Luther dreamed up to bash Erasmus over the head with, but instead it is the heart of the doctrine of depravity that the Reformers had and that the men at Westminster agreed with. Holding to the bondage of the will is a necessary teaching if one is to believe and sincerely hold to the depravity of man. Unless a person holds to the bondage of the will (Total Depravity of man), a person cannot consistently or even honestly believe in justification by grace alone as the Reformers articulated it. But again, the doctrines of the Reformation stand or fall along with a robust holding of bondage of the will. The teaching of free-will is not just a little wrong, it is the chink in the dyke that when removed the whole dyke will collapse. This is not just a diatribe against Arminianism, it is an effort to defend the Gospel of grace/Christ alone as set out by Scripture and trumpeted in the Reformation.

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”

But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realizes that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another—God alone. As long as he is persuaded that he can make even the smallest contribution to his salvation, he remains self-confident and does not utterly despair of himself, and so is not humbled before God; but plans out for himself (or at least hopes and longs for) a position, an occasion, a work, which shall bring him final salvation. Martin Luther

According to Luther, until a person realizes that his salvation is utterly beyond his own power and will, he is not ready to be saved. According to Luther, a person must realize that salvation is utterly beyond his own power and will in order that s/he may depend absolutely on the will and work of God. According to Luther, as long as a person is persuaded that s/he can make the smallest contribution to salvation that person is self-confident and is not humbled before God. According to Luther, as long as a person is not humbled and despairing of self before God that person will plan for himself something in order to bring himself salvation.

The point, then, in this context, is that in order for a person to be a true Arminian that person must believe in free-will. A person with free-will does not recognize that his salvation is utterly beyond his own power and will and is not able to depend absolutely on the will and work of God. The person who believes that s/he has a free-will must believe that s/he makes some contribution in salvation since salvation depends on the choice of that person. This is directly contrary to what Luther taught about the will and about the Gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone.

The position that we are driven to, I am arguing, is that we must consider the Gospel that burst forth during the Reformation time and consider whether it was biblical or not. If it was and is, then the modern evangelical Calvinist view that we can just easily accept Arminians and Pelagians as brothers and sisters must be examined. This is not to argue that no person who claims to be an Arminian is unconverted, but it is to argue that this wholesale acceptance is dangerous at best. In Galatians 1 Paul was quite clear of the danger of preaching a distorted Gospel which was different from the Gospel of grace alone in Christ. One can understand this as an attack on Arminians and Pelagians, or one can understand this as crying out that we must look to the Gospel again for what it is and be more careful.

The free-will state is not one that can look to the grace of God in Christ alone to save it, but instead the free-will state is what a person must be converted from. We cannot hold to a Gospel of free-grace while we hold a Gospel which allows for a free-will in it as well. The two cannot be joined as they are enemies and can never be reconciled. The Gospel of free-grace is all about the will and choice of God to do all as He pleases and when He pleases to the glory of His name. The gospel which includes free-will is all about the will and choice of man to do as he pleases and when he pleases. The Gospel of free-grace is all about the freedom and sovereignty of God, but the gospel which allows for free-will is all about the freedom and sovereignty of man. God is sovereign, but man has only thought he was sovereign in his depraved state as a result of the fall into sin. We must love the Gospel of free-grace alone enough that we will stand against any and all who oppose that, even in the name of religion.

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”

Luther taught that the heart of the issue of the Reformation was the doctrine of the enslaved will. He said that it was worth standing for even if it disturbed the whole world. On the other hand, in the modern day we have those who are not willing to cause a disturbance in a denomination to teach this doctrine. They are willing to hold hands and to build bridges with those who deny and hate this doctrine. The enslaved will is at the very heart of the Gospel and the Gospel has two twin truths that the enslaved will supports. 1) The helplessness of man in his sin and 2) the sovereignty of the grace of God. Apart from those twin truths there is no justification by faith alone.

The heart of the Reformation and the doctrines of the Gospel was the doctrine of the enslaved will. That basic thought should be shouted from the hills and the pulpits of the land. Apart from the twin truths of the helplessness of man in his sin and the sovereignty of the grace of God there is no justification by faith alone. That as well should be shouted from the hills and the pulpits of the land. The older Calvinist, in the sense of doctrine, believed that this was a vital teaching, but it is not so in our day. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It depends on whether one is convinced of the necessity of preaching a Gospel of grace alone or not. It is impossible for a person that truly believes in free-will to preach the Gospel of grace alone. This is a vital teaching that must be gone over and over in order to grasp how important it really is. The Gospel of grace stands as a towering and beautiful shining forth of the glory of God, but the doctrine of free-will stands as a monument to the ability of man.

But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realizes that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another—God alone. As long as he is persuaded that he can make even the smallest contribution to his salvation, he remains self-confident and does not utterly despair of himself, and so is not humbled before God; but plans out for himself (or at least hopes and longs for) a position, an occasion, a work, which shall bring him final salvation. Martin Luther

Luther argued that the soul must be thoroughly humbled before it could be saved, and by that he meant that the soul must be humbled utterly beyond its own power, will, and works. This is to say that Luther believed that a soul must repent of all hope and help in their own will and look entirely and totally to the will and work of God alone. A person cannot look entirely and absolutely to God alone unless that person has looked away from his own work and will. It is that simple to state, but the heart will wrestle with this until it enters eternity. This is not just an academic statement, but instead the grace of God must work self and free-will out of the soul that the will of God and His grace works humility before God so it would rest in the cross and His righteousness alone.

Luther said that as long as the soul is persuaded that he can makes the smallest contribution to his own salvation, that person has some self-confidence and will look for a way for self to bring something of salvation. Once again, for those with eyes to see this is a shattering blow to the teaching of free-will and an assertion of justification by grace alone through faith alone. Behold the glory of the grace of God in saving sinners at His own pleasure and by grace alone. Behold the wonders of Christ alone as He saves for the glory of God alone. There is no room for free-will in the Gospel of Christ, but instead it is an unwelcome intruder who wants to share in His glory. This is not Hyper-Calvinism, this is the glory of free-grace in historic Calvinism.

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”

Luther taught that the heart of the issue of the Reformation was the doctrine of the enslaved will. He said that it was worth standing for even if it disturbed the whole world. On the other hand, in the modern day we have those who are not willing to cause a disturbance in a denomination to teach this doctrine. They are willing to hold hands and to build bridges with those who deny and hate this doctrine. The enslaved will is at the very heart of the Gospel and the Gospel has two twin truths that the enslaved will supports. 1) The helplessness of man in his sin and 2) the sovereignty of the grace of God. Apart from those twin truths there is no justification by faith alone.

The Reformation is thought of as bringing back to light the great doctrine of justification by faith alone. But if Luther was correct, there is no justification by faith alone apart from the teaching that man is helpless in his sin and that twin teaching of the sovereignty of the grace of God. Apart from the bondage of the will, which is the opposite and even contradictory position of the free-will, there is no biblical teaching of justification by faith alone. This is to say, then, that modern Calvinist who most likely affirm and defend their confession which holds to justification by faith alone are inconsistent at best when the affirm Arminians (most likely, Pelagians) are brothers and sisters in Christ. It is also a sign that something drastic has changed or is a declaration that the magisterial Reformers were simply and plainly wrong.

We can say with certainty that when the magisterial Reformers asserted that the Gospel could only be seen in light of the bondage of the will or the enslaved will and yet modern people who think of themselves as Calvinists deny that in practice, something has changed. It was not Hyper-Calvinism that stood against Roman Catholicism and its incipient Arminian theology, it was the Reformers themselves that stood against that. Are modern Calvinists (in name) ready to brand Calvin and Luther as Hyper-Calvinists or are they willing to say that Calvin and Luther were simply wrong about the Gospel? We cannot have it both ways, it is one or the other.

Luther said that the bondage of the will (enslaved will), as opposed to the free-will, was worth standing for even if it disturbed the whole world. But in our day, nothing appears worth standing for if it disturbs just a few. The doctrine of the will is not just some plaything for academics to discuss, it is vital for the common man to come to understand about himself if he is going to understand the Gospel of grace alone. Until the soul is humbled enough to where it sees that it has nothing in itself that it can do or depend on, it will not understand the Gospel of grace alone where man looks to God alone for all regarding to salvation and that God gives that by grace alone. Oh that Reformed people would understand these things today that they could preach and proclaim the Gospel of grace alone to those who still trust something in themselves and the acts of their own wills.

But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realizes that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another—God alone. As long as he is persuaded that he can make even the smallest contribution to his salvation, he remains self-confident and does not utterly despair of himself, and so is not humbled before God; but plans out for himself (or at least hopes and longs for) a position, an occasion, a work, which shall bring him final salvation. Martin Luther

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”

Luther taught that the heart of the issue of the Reformation was the doctrine of the enslaved will. He said that it was worth standing for even if it disturbed the whole world. On the other hand, in the modern day we have those who are not willing to cause a disturbance in a denomination to teach this doctrine. They are willing to hold hands and to build bridges with those who deny and hate this doctrine. The enslaved will is at the very heart of the Gospel and the Gospel has two twin truths that the enslaved will supports. 1) The helplessness of man in his sin and 2) the sovereignty of the grace of God. Apart from those twin truths there is no justification by faith alone.

Can it be true that Luther was right about the enslaved will being at the heart of the Gospel and that two twin truths demand that the enslaved will be true? If that is true, then we live in a day where there has been a rapid departure from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, even by professing Calvinists. Once again, if we truly believe that God used the Reformers to bring the Gospel of grace alone and His glory alone back to the forefront in opposition to Roman Catholicism, then we must be awakened to these great truths again. It will not suffice to simply utter the words that are true and orthodox, we must be awakened to the concepts and the doctrines as they describe the reality of our fallen and enslaved wills and hearts to us. Arminian teaching is the essence of Roman Catholicism, at least in many ways, and we must understand that to go back to Arminian teaching is to return to the essence of Rome. The doctrines and practices of Rome depend on the free-will of man. For professing Calvinists to return with a friendly dialogue with Arminian teaching is to say that the Reformers were wrong.

This is not to say that there is no such teaching as Hyper-Calvinism and that there is nothing wrong at all with some of the people in history who went under that name, but it is to say that perhaps we need to go to Scripture first and to the Reformers second to find out just how vital the teaching of the enslaved will is. If the heart of the issue at the Reformation did indeed revolve around the enslaved will, then what are we doing now by not having all revolve around the enslaved will? It will show that we have departed from the two twin truths that the enslaved will supports: 1) The helplessness of man in his sin and 2) the sovereignty of the grace of God.”

When the quote above says “Apart from those twin truths there is no justification by faith alone,” it shows once again the heart of the Gospel as Luther and Calvin saw it. The heart of justification by faith alone is justification by grace alone. For the Gospel to be by grace alone, man cannot contribute one thing to it and there can be act of a free-will. For the will to be free, it must be both free of depravity and free of grace. A step back to Arminian teaching on the will is to step back from the Gospel of grace alone through faith alone to the glory of God alone. The Scriptures (Rom 11:6) teach us that if it is by grace, then it is no longer by works because that would mean that grace is no longer grace. Adding the act of a will is to add a work of a will and that is adding to grace which means that grace is no longer grace. This is not unkind to Arminians or to modern Calvinists, but it is an effort to show them that the Gospel is not just accepting a creed and it is not just having some intellectual knowledge. Being nice to ourselves and to Arminians is not as important as the Gospel. We must wake up to the glory of God and get back to the essential truths of the Gospel whether men like them or not.

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”

Luther taught that the heart of the issue of the Reformation was the doctrine of the enslaved will. He said that it was worth standing for even if it disturbed the whole world. On the other hand, in the modern day we have those who are not willing to cause a disturbance in a denomination to teach this doctrine. They are willing to hold hands and to build bridges with those who deny and hate this doctrine. The enslaved will is at the very heart of the Gospel and the Gospel has two twin truths that the enslaved will supports. 1) The helplessness of man in his sin and 2) the sovereignty of the grace of God. Apart from those twin truths there is no justification by faith alone.

It is vital to go back to some degree and try to grasp what the magisterial Reformers taught on this issue (the will). While it is true that the Bible trumps any and all people, once doctrines or systems of doctrines begin to be used it is necessary to understand what the origins of those are. It has been said that Luther was a Calvinist and Calvin was a Lutheran on these issues. The greatest of the Reformers were not divided on this issue. It was not just a side issue, but instead it was thought to be at the heart of the Gospel. At the time of the Reformation the doctrine of the will was seen to be at the heart of the Gospel, yet today it is greatly ignored and not thought to be important as long as a person preaches Christ. I would argue that for the Reformers it was not possible to preach Christ alone and grace alone apart from teaching the bondage of the will and the enslavement of man in sin. It may be the case that those who are modern Calvinists (in a large majority) are the ones that are not in accordance with the Reformers and some (not all) of those they deride as “Hyper-Calvinists” are in line with the Reformers.

The 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 favor, to holiness, and happiness.   William Cunningham

The above statement is vital to understanding what true Reformed theology is and what is at the heart of the Gospel itself. If the statement by Cunningham (just above) is representative of what the Reformers taught and what they taught was in line with Scripture, then the whole of theological thought in the modern day needs to be awakened. Those who are evangelical or modern Calvinists are in fact not in line with historical Calvinism and their wholesale acceptance of Arminians as brothers and sisters is also not in line with the Reformers. One may deride a desire for consistency as being small-minded, but that may be something that comes from a small mind itself. The doctrine of original sin and the doctrine of divine grace meet somewhere and in some way. One cannot be understood to a great degree apart from understanding the other. To the degree we view man as being in sin is the degree we view divine grace as saving man.

The true doctrine of the depravity of man cannot and will not stand with the doctrine of free-will. The true doctrine of free-grace cannot and will not stand with the doctrine of free-will. The true doctrines of man’s depravity and of sovereign grace stand squarely with justification by grace alone through faith alone. If we throw out our doctrines of depravity to the degree that we think of the doctrine of free-will as being of little importance, we have also thrown out the real doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone. One can be gracious and winsome and at the same time be one who is throwing out the essential teachings of the Gospel in the name of Calvinism or in the name of Arminianism. We can smile and be as nice as a person can be while sinners drop into hell trusting in their free-wills. That is far worse than Nero fiddling while Rome burned (whether that story is true or not).

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign then to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”

Modern Calvinists (evangelical Calvinists, neo-Calvinists) are virulently opposed to what they call “Hyper-Calvinism” and yet are warm and glowing toward professing Arminians. Modern Calvinists seem to be averse to questioning much of anything about modern Arminians and will warn Calvinists that they must be winsome, though modern Calvinists are anything but winsome to what they think of as Hyper-Calvinists. We are told that Calvinists and Arminians preach the same Christ and essentially the same Gospel so there is no need to divide over the things that are distinctively Calvinistic. However, there is a great desire to divide over the things that modern Calvinists think of as Hyper-Calvinism.

We must be careful to discern what is true and what people really believe versus what they profess to believe, though this may be thought of as judgmental. But if we are not discerning, then we will take the hand of a professing Arminian who is actually a Pelagian and our warmth toward them will further the deception of that person and help that person on to hell. Unity for the sake of unity is not true unity at all, but instead there is only true unity in the truth. When modern Calvinists are anxious to stand beside professing Arminians in the same denomination and say that they are all working together for the same Jesus and the same Gospel, what those modern Calvinists do not understand is that they are joining hands with Pelagians and warmly thinking of them as brothers and sisters in Christ. If Scripture is at all correct (and it is), then there is a narrow gate and a narrow road. Just because a person professes to be an Arminian does not mean that the person is one, but then again just because a person professes to be a Calvinist does not mean that a person is one. One is saved by Christ and Christ alone and not because of a theological position that one holds to in the intellect.

Why are modern Calvinists taking millions of Arminians at their words that they are Arminians and that they are true believers? Why are modern Calvinists not examining their own positions to see if they can even be called a Calvinist, but even more why are they not examining their hearts to see if Christ lives in them? The Pope of Rome is calling for unity among all who will use the name God and yet modern Protestants seem to have the same spirit to a lesser degree. The Gospel of grace alone will not admit of one work of the will any more than it will admit one work of the law for salvation, so how can there by unity by those who say they believe it and those who say they don’t? As long as we don’t care enough to set out careful distinctions about who Christ is and the Gospel, we will be like the Pope in calling for unity among different religions.

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

It is vital that we take care about the Gospel and of the Person of Christ. If we are going to be like Paul, then we must not see the favor of men by being winsome more than we are seeking the glory of God. It is not winsome to preach to men the Gospel of grace alone, but it is the only true Gospel. Modern Calvinists and modern Arminians need to hear the Gospel of grace alone regardless of their professions. Is the Gospel virtually lost in our land?

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign then to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”

The position of the main Calvinists in history was to look upon Arminianism as opposed to biblical Christianity. Luther blasted away at Erasmus for wanting to make peace with men of all beliefs. The Gospel that burst out upon Germany and other countries was the Gospel of grace alone and the only kind of grace that the Reformers knew of was a sovereign grace. This was the Gospel that God brought to light and that He used to bring a mighty revival and reformation in many areas. It is also the Gospel that God has used many times since then to bring life to His Church and to bring sinners to Himself. It is also that Gospel that the Remonstrants (followers of Arminius) did not like and set out five points against it.

It must be seen that Calvinism or Calvin is not the issue, but instead the character of God, the work of Christ and His Spirit, and the nature of grace and the Gospel are the issues. The term “Calvinism” is simply a helpful term, though it must be admitted that it can be and is misused, and is used to distinguish certain teachings of history. The same is true of the term “Arminian” or “Arminianism.” It is simply a term that is helpful to describe what people believe rather than setting out many doctrines and going down a list. It is possible to stand firm against Arminianism and not hate Arminians, and one can hope that one can also not like Calvinism (rightly or wrongly) and yet not hate Calvinists.

What we must do is to search the Scriptures and to seek the face of God for what is true rather than easily accepting thing because they make sense to us. It is not necessarily hateful or unkind to disagree with others and it is not hateful to think that some who profess to be Christians are not Christians in fact. Scripture teaches us over and over that many will be deceived and we are told not to be deceived. If the Bible teaches doctrine A, then for a person to teach a doctrine that really and truly contradicts doctrine A cannot be true. If the Bible teaches the Gospel of grace alone, then if a system of theology (and the people who hold to that system) really and truly contradicts that Gospel of grace alone that system of theology denies and opposes the true Gospel. That system denies and opposes the true Gospel even if those who hold to the system claim to be Christians and even if they claim to hold to the true Gospel.

One of the many things that should wake us up is that modern Calvinists are so friendly to Arminianism and Pelagianism and yet are virulently opposed to hyper-Calvinism. Could it be that modern Calvinism is closer to historic Arminianism and modern Arminianism is really not a lot different than historic Pelagianism? Could it also be that what many modern Calvinists refer to as hyper-Calvinism is really just historic Calvinism? The point, once again, is not what theological title a person falls under, but the issue is what that person really believes. Theological positions have changed and continue to change, so it is important to know what a person really and truly believes and what a theological position sets forth in its own particular time.

The reason that we should examine modern Calvinism and modern Arminianism is that both need to be examined in accordance with Scripture. It is not enough to believe that a person must be born again in order to see the kingdom, a person must in truth be born again in order to see the kingdom. It is so easy for people to make a profession of a creed and be satisfied with that rather than be satisfied with Christ Himself. A modern person who believes what modern Arminians believe is most likely in line with historic Pelagianism and as such is an unconverted person. They reason that they are unconverted is not because they are Arminians and not because they are other than Calvinists, but because they don’t have Christ. People must have Christ, not a theological position.

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Chrisitans,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign then to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.     Anonymous

The quote from above sets forth some distinctives that are important to consider from a biblical and a historical perspective. It also gets at some issues of the nature of grace and the Gospel of grace alone. While the quote from above might make one think it was written by Martin Luther, it is not Luther and is by a man who just died in the last few years. The real question has to do with the nature of sin and the Gospel. If it is true that there is no real agreement between the two camps as to the Gospel, can the two camps consider each other as Christians with much confidence at all? How can a true Calvinist work together as brothers and sisters with Arminians?

It is just assumed by most, or at least it appears to be the vast, vast majority, that the differences between Calvinism and Arminians are relatively minor. While the differences between modern Calvinism and modern Arminianism may not be all that different, there is a huge difference between historic Calvinism and historic Arminianism. The differences between historic Calvinism and modern Arminianism are even greater. It is my contention that modern Arminianism is closer to the historic Pelagian teaching than it is to historic Arminianism.

We live in a day where it is said that as long as people preach Christ then they are preaching the Gospel. That is simply incorrect and is a huge error. Roman Catholics say they preach Christ. Mormons say that they preach Christ. Latter Day Saints (Jehovah Witnesses) say they preach Christ. But even those three groups cannot agree on which one is the true Christ.

A friend of mine recently sent me this note from the Geneva Bible on1 John 4:3: “He giveth a certain and perpetual rule to know the doctrine of Antichrist by, to wit, if either the divine or human nature of Christ, or the true uniting of them together be denied; or if the least jot that may be, be derogate from his office who is our only King, Prophet, and everlasting high Priest.” This is to say that the biblical teaching of Christ must include all of who Christ is or the teaching is of the antichrist. It is true that the three groups above preach something about Jesus Christ, but they limit their teaching to something about Christ (or some aspect of) rather than preaching the true Christ in all of His offices.

The question, then, is not whether Arminians preach Christ, but it is whether they teach a whole Christ and the true Christ. The question will also include modern Calvinists and the Christ they preach as well. Is the sovereign Lord of the universe portrayed as the reigning King of kings and the sovereign over all the hearts of men and women? Do we teach men that Christ came to save His people or that Christ has done all He can do and leave it to men and women to do what they will? The issue is not whether one is a Calvinist or an Arminian, but whether one is saved by the grace of Christ or not. The question is not whether one is a Calvinist or an Arminian, but whether one preaches the true Christ and a true grace or not.

It seems that the vast majority or preachers in our day (regardless of their professed theological position) are preaching a salvation that is conditioned on the response of the free-will of man rather than the free-grace of God. While this is astonishing considering what the Bible teaches and the Reformers taught, it is still what is going on. So many appear to be afraid to tell men and women that they must have faith and that God must give them faith by grace that they leave men and women to their own devices to come up with faith. These people are left looking to self rather than Christ in order to be saved. This is a huge difference between historic Calvinism and today.