In the theology of Arminianism, we are told that Christ died to make it possible for everyone to be saved, if they so choose. This is a rejection of the Reformed view that Christ died to actually save a particular people chosen by God. The Arminian view is by far the most popular view of the atonement in the Christian church today. However, serious objections must be lodged against Arminian universal redemption, among which are these:
● It slanders God’s attributes, such as His love. Arminianism presents a love that actually doesn’t save. It is a love that loves and then, if refused, turns to hatred and anger. It is not unchangeable love that endures from everlasting to everlasting.
It slanders God’s wisdom. Would God make a plan to save everyone, then not carry it out? Would He be so foolish as to have His Son pay for the salvation of all if He knew that Christ would not be able to obtain what He paid for? I would feel foolish if I went into a store and bought something, then walked out without it. Yet Arminianism asks us to believe that this is true of salvation—that a purchase was made, a redemption, and yet the Lord walked away without those whom He had redeemed. That view slanders the wisdom of God.
It slanders God’s power. Arminian universalism obliges us to believe that God was able to accomplish the meriting aspect of salvation, but that the applying aspect is dependent on man and his free will. It asks us to believe that God has worked out everyone’s salvation up to a point, but no further for anyone.
It slanders God’s justice. Did Christ satisfy God’s justice for everyone? Did Christ take the punishment due to everybody? If He did, how can God punish anyone? Is it justice to punish one person for the sins of another and later to punish the initial offender again? Double punishment is injustice.
● It disables the deity of Christ. A defeated Savior is not God. This error teaches that Christ tried to save everyone but didn’t succeed. It denies the power and efficacy of Christ’s blood, since not all for whom He died are saved. Hence, Christ’s blood was wasted on Judas and Esau. Much of His labor, tears, and blood was poured out in vain.
● It undermines the unity of the Trinity. Just as parents must work together to run a family effectively, so the triune God co-labors in each of His persons with identical purposes and goals. One person cannot possibly have in mind to save some that another person has not determined to save, but Arminian universalism implicitly teaches just that. It denies the Father’s sovereign election, since Christ would have died for more than God decreed to save, thereby making Christ seem to have a different agenda than that of the Father. That would have been anathema to Jesus, who asserted that His entire redemptive ministry was consciously designed to carry out a divinely arranged plan (John 6:38–39).
Similarly, Arminian redemption disavows the saving ministry of the Holy Spirit, since it claims that Christ’s blood has a wider application than does the Spirit’s saving work. Any presentation of salvation that makes the Father or the Spirit’s work in salvation lag behind Christ’s work contradicts the inherent unity of the Trinity. God cannot be at odds with Himself. Arminianism is inconsistent universalism.
● It rejects all of the other points of Calvinism. The Arminian view of the atonement rejects the doctrine of man’s total depravity, teaching that man has the ability within himself to receive and accept Christ. It rejects unconditional election, teaching that God elects on the basis of foreseen faith. It rejects irresistible grace, teaching that man’s will is stronger than God’s. It rejects the perseverance of the saints, teaching that man can apostatize from the faith.
● It detracts from the glory of God. If God does everything in salvation, He gets all the glory. But if God can do only so much and not everything, then the person who completes the application of salvation gets at least some glory. That is why there is so much emphasis in mass evangelism on the free will of man. Universal atonement exalts the will of man and debases the glory of God.
● It perverts evangelism. We repeatedly hear today in evangelistic messages: “Christ died for you. What will you do for Him?” But do we ever find in the Bible that someone is told personally, “Christ died for you”? Rather, we find the work of Christ explained, followed by a call to everyone: “Repent and believe the gospel.” The message is not “Believe that Christ died for you” or “Believe that you are one of the elect.” It is “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.”
● It disparages the intrinsic efficacy of the atonement itself. Arminians teach that Christ’s work induces the Father to accept graciously what Jesus accomplished in place of a full satisfaction of His justice. It is as if Jesus persuaded His Father to accept something less than justice demanded. That is why Arminius claimed that when God saved sinners, He moved from His throne of justice to His throne of grace. But God does not have two thrones; His throne of justice is His throne of grace (Ps. 85:10). Arminianism forgets that the atonement does not win God’s love but is the provision of His love.
Joel, I think your choice of attack words like “slander”, perverts, etc. are badly chosen just because you disagree. Come back to me again after you’ve read with and open mind and heart, Dave Hunt’s “What love is this”. He absolutely, and thoroughly shows the problems with strict “Calvinism”. My faith is based on “whosoever will…may come”, God gives all a free will, to choose Him or not…He just knows who will….makes a lot more sense than what you’re propounding!
Tom,
Our faith is not based on “whosoever will…may come”. Our faith us based solely upon Christ crucified, who purposefully and efficaciously “laid down his life for the sheep” and “loved the church, and gave himself for it.” (John, 10:15, Eph. 5:25). To the redeemed, “…Christ is all…” (Colossians 3:11). All the glory in salvation goes to “God that sheweth mercy” and not to our own will (Romans 9:16).
The statements that Arminianism “slanders” God’s attributes and “perverts evangelism” are right in line with New Testament biblical terminology, but far milder than what is warranted. (2 Peter 2:1) These terms describe exactly what Arminian doctrine does.
We need not read David Hunt, for we have read God’s Word.
I have no problem with “whosoever will,may come”. But with all due respect I submit that it can be Biblically proved that no one will ever come in and of himself without the Father drawing him to the Son through the Holy Spirit. That is the essence of Biblical Christianity. Arminianism basically declares that the sinner comes to God of his own free will and I can testify that in my own case if God had not changed my will and drawn me to Himself that I’d still be running away from him.
Yes, but this downplays the free will of man entirely. God gives us the option to follow Him, because He wants us to love Him of our own freewill–this is the true love….. Without Him, we are doomed for destruction.
God gives to all free will based on what? Romans 3:9-10 says that none are righteous, no, not one, there are none that seek after God! When we have a free will only under our own influence, the Scriptures and experience bear out that we will always choose self and not choose God–take a look at Adam and Eve. If it were for our free will (free from the restraining and redeeming grace of God), none would choose Him. We must be born “from above” (John 3). It is our free will that shows us that we are really slaves to sin and self rather than to Christ (Romans 6:5-13).
>>Come back to me again after you’ve read with and open mind and heart, Dave Hunt’s “What love is this”
Are you kidding me? That book is notorious for being wrong. Hunt not only misrepresents the teachings of Scripture, but presents a false picture of Calvinism as his foil. It’s one thing to disagree with someone but you should at least understand their position before you publicly critique it. James White has refuted Hunt’s poor exegesis and historical theology in two books: “The Potter’s Freedom” and “Debating Calvinism.”
Tom, I dare say you do not approach Calvinism with the same open mind and heart as you ask of Joel. I would also be very careful to say anyone absolutely covers anything. That said, first, no one has a free will. Scripturally, we are either slaves to sin or slaves/bondservants to Christ. Second, if you are saying election, a biblical word you cannot avoid, is based upon who God knows will choose him, you believe our salvation is based upon our work and own merit (our choosing) rather than on grace. I agree, God does look down the corridors of time and sees us choosing Him but only because we have been reborn/regenerated by the Spirit who brings us from spiritual death to life. A necessity for those who are dead in sin. Romans 3 1-10 is very clear regarding the thoroughness of our depravity. There is nothing in us, no faith at all, that we can draw upon to choose God. Dead is dead, not partially dead, or “mostly dead” to quote The Princess Bride.
Tom, I agree! Hunt’s book is the best rebuttal I’ve read in regard to strict Calvinism. I don’t hold to strict calvinism, nor do i believe that strict arminianism is accurate either. I believe there can be a balance between the two schools of thought.
Tom,
Dave Hunt? Really, have you read the responses (especially James White’s) to Hunt’s book. Have you listened to the debate that Dave Hunt had with folks such as James White and Dr. Joseph Pipa?
<a href="http://www.aomin.org/results.html?cx=015138337201457149671%3Adhrmihpmjl0&cof=FORID%3A11&q=dave+hunt&sa=Search&siteurl=www.aomin.org%2F&ref=&ss=2573j695465j13Here is some material from James White. And here is the debate between Dave Hunt and Dr. Pipa.
It slanders God’s attributes, such as His love. Arminianism presents a love that actually doesn’t save. It is a love that loves and then, if refused, turns to hatred and anger. It is not unchangeable love that endures from everlasting to everlasting. My answer : Love has done all possible to save without turning us into slaves by making us love him back – His love is not turned into hatred or anger – Jesus wept when Jerusalem refused his love – how is that hatred? – Bad argument through and through!
It slanders God’s wisdom. Would God make a plan to save everyone, then not carry it out? Would He be so foolish as to have His Son pay for the salvation of all if He knew that Christ would not be able to obtain what He paid for? I would feel foolish if I went into a store and bought something, then walked out without it. Yet Arminianism asks us to believe that this is true of salvation—that a purchase was made, a redemption, and yet the Lord walked away without those whom He had redeemed. That view slanders the wisdom of God. Answer: His plan was to save all who called on him after providing the solution so He actually gets exactly what he planned and paid for – He saves all who call on his name!
It slanders God’s power. Arminian universalism obliges us to believe that God was able to accomplish the meriting aspect of salvation, but that the applying aspect is dependent on man and his free will. It asks us to believe that God has worked out everyone’s salvation up to a point, but no further for anyone. Answer : The depending on mans free will was God’s purpose and choice and so his power is not limited at all – he decides the rules.
about an hour ago · Like
Tony Hickman It slanders God’s justice. Did Christ satisfy God’s justice for everyone? Did Christ take the punishment due to everybody? If He did, how can God punish anyone? Is it justice to punish one person for the sins of another and later to punish the initial offender again? Double punishment is injustice. Answer : The view that Jesus paid the actual price for every sin and paid the full penalty for all would make it not necessary for even the elect to repent or receive grace. The bible says if we confess he forgives but if the penalty is paid in the sense I said, why would you have to confess or even be sorry or humble? He paid the price so that anyone can receive grace and mercy.
about an hour ago · Like
Tony Hickman It disables the deity of Christ. A defeated Savior is not God. This error teaches that Christ tried to save everyone but didn’t succeed. It denies the power and efficacy of Christ’s blood, since not all for whom He died are saved. Hence, Christ’s blood was wasted on Judas and Esau. Much of His labor, tears, and blood was poured out in vain. Answer : the writer does not show how there is any defeat in what Christ acheived or how it denies the power of the blood – the blood is applied where a soul humbles himself and confesses his sin; the blood is not any the less powerful because some reject it. You could use the same argument regarding waste to those who build with wood hay and stubble and are saved as through fire. They are saved but wasted their gift to build gold silver and precious stones.
about an hour ago · Like
Tony Hickman It undermines the unity of the Trinity. Just as parents must work together to run a family effectively, so the triune God co-labors in each of His persons with identical purposes and goals. One person cannot possibly have in mind to save some that another person has not determined to save, but Arminian universalism implicitly teaches just that. It denies the Father’s sovereign election, since Christ would have died for more than God decreed to save, thereby making Christ seem to have a different agenda than that of the Father. That would have been anathema to Jesus, who asserted that His entire redemptive ministry was consciously designed to carry out a divinely arranged plan (John 6:38–39). answer : I totally disagree – God never decreed to save all. He decreed to provide salvation to all who believe and receive. The understanding of election is flawed.
about an hour ago · Like
Tony Hickman It rejects all of the other points of Calvinism. The Arminian view of the atonement rejects the doctrine of man’s total depravity, teaching that man has the ability within himself to receive and accept Christ. It rejects unconditional election, teaching that God elects on the basis of foreseen faith. It rejects irresistible grace, teaching that man’s will is stronger than God’s. It rejects the perseverance of the saints, teaching that man can apostatize from the faith. Answer : We do reject irrisistable grace (show me a scripture that teaches this). Christ speaks of those that hear his voice and harden their hearts and exhorts them not to – since he exhorts them not to then they have the ability to receive his word – read again the parable of the sower – seeds fall on all hearts and some receive it. Why would Jesus teach this as it disagrees with your irrisistable grace and why would he send his seed into the heart of those who are not elect? And it does not teach man’s will is stronger as it is not a battle of wills and power as already stated. If it was a matter of God overriding man with his power and will then it would be no contest but this is not God’s way.
31 minutes ago · Like
Tony Hickman It detracts from the glory of God. If God does everything in salvation, He gets all the glory. But if God can do only so much and not everything, then the person who completes the application of salvation gets at least some glory. That is why there is so much emphasis in mass evangelism on the free will of man. Universal atonement exalts the will of man and debases the glory of God. Answer :The provision of Salvation is complete and when a person receives it they are not adding to it at all. This is a very silly statement. If someone offers me £1000 and I accept it, then I haven’t added anything. God did everything and he gets all the glory when I receive. I was helpless in my sin and Jesus did all to save me. Me accepting that does not in any way detract from the fact that it was all His work. It is not work to receive a free gift.
26 minutes ago · Like
Tony Hickman It perverts evangelism. We repeatedly hear today in evangelistic messages: “Christ died for you. What will you do for Him?” But do we ever find in the Bible that someone is told personally, “Christ died for you”? Rather, we find the work of Christ explained, followed by a call to everyone: “Repent and believe the gospel.” The message is not “Believe that Christ died for you” or “Believe that you are one of the elect.” It is “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” Answer : We do not teach “what will you do for him” Romans 5:6
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
I think this says it very clearly – Your are ungodly and a sinner therefore Christ died for you. I think he destroyed his own argument when he said “followed by a call to everyone” Repent – according to his gospel they can’t repent because they are not elect. So this statement agrees with our doctrine
15 minutes ago · Like
Tony Hickman ● It disparages the intrinsic efficacy of the atonement itself. Arminians teach that Christ’s work induces the Father to accept graciously what Jesus accomplished in place of a full satisfaction of His justice. It is as if Jesus persuaded His Father to accept something less than justice demanded. That is why Arminius claimed that when God saved sinners, He moved from His throne of justice to His throne of grace. But God does not have two thrones; His throne of justice is His throne of grace (Ps. 85:10). Arminianism forgets that the atonement does not win God’s love but is the provision of His love. Answer : I have already answered that this does not reduce the efficacy of what Christ did. It is perfectly efficacious for all who believe and does not lose its power because of rejection. Rejection simply means that the efficacy is not received and enjoyed. The Father Son and Holy Spirit planned salvation and the Father was always in agreement and needs no persuasion to “accept graciously” what Jesus did – He already decided it. He makes it sound like Jesus acted independently (foolishness). God’s justice is fulfilled by Grace in action. Don’t know where this ridiculous idea of moving from thrones came from – God because he is a God of Justice and of Grace, provided by Grace the satisfaction of his justice so that all who believe can receive His unmerited grace. We also do not teach the ridiculous nonsense that God’s love is won by the death of Christ. The whole gospel is about God so loved the world that he sent Jesus. The love was always there for the world and love provided the answer in Jesus to the justice of God for the ungodly sinner.
Thanks for this great blog entry! These are great points you’ve made about why Arminian Universal Redemption isn’t possible, especially your point(s) about God’s power and his ability to fully save us. On the cross, Jesus said “It is finished”. If we needed to then choose to be saved, His work wouldn’t be finished and our will would be stronger than God’s will.