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.”

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.