Arminianism: It Robs the Gospel of its Personal Nature

We're experiencing 17 -hour jet lag. Believe me, flying back to the East Coast is a snooze in comparison to flying across the

Pacific Ocean. What do you do when you're asked to speak in that context? Well, you go with what you know.

And so why don't you turn with me to Romans 8 while I give you the background and my thinking here. I did this morning listen to a lecture delivered by an

Arminian scholar. He's primarily a philosopher, but he does address philosophical and theological issues.

And he's teaching through the doctrine of salvation. And I have often pondered the reality of what you have to do to try to maintain a focus upon man as the centerpiece of the plan of salvation, which is what

Arminianism really is. It is a man -centered faith. While God the

Father decrees salvation, and God the Son dies to make salvation a possibility, and the

Spirit comes and convicts and does everything the Spirit can do, the triune

God is giving 100%. But it's up to man.

God's trying. God tries, but man disposes. It is in essence what synergism is all about, all of man's religions that have that kind of emphasis.

And I've been pondering what you have to do with various divine truths to substantiate such a perspective.

One of the things that truly is frightening, it's sad, and I don't know why more intelligent, well -read

Arminians don't seem to see this, but in essence you depersonalize the gospel.

What do I mean by that? Well, in the most extreme form of Arminianism, you have what's called open theism.

Those people who do not even believe that God knows what free agents, free creatures can do, and therefore the future is open.

There are various possibilities that might be actuated. At least they're consistent at that point.

They recognize the only way to really have a sovereign man is if you have a God who doesn't know what's going to be happening in the future.

I don't even remember if we played over the years. Did we ever play my debate with Dr.

Sanders on open theism from Reformed Theological Seminary Bible Study? I don't remember. Actually, since no one remembers,

I could do it again and get away with it. I don't remember if we did or didn't, but I remember asking

Dr. Sanders in that debate, when God created the universe, did he know you would exist?

He said, no. There was no way he could know that you were going to exist because you are the result of so many free will choices of free creatures over so many generations it wouldn't be possible for God to know you would ever exist.

Now that's what I mean by impersonal. That is, God did not create with any personal plan for an individual in mind at all.

He couldn't. But most Arminians, thankfully, are not open theists. Now this gentleman

I was listening to this morning, Dr. William Lane Craig, is probably one of the best known Arminian philosophers out there.

And he was teaching through justification. It was odd because section 10 of the lecture was on justification.

And section 11 jumped over to basically eternal security and perseverance of the saints.

I have a feeling I missed something. Or they weren't posted right or something. I don't know. But he was going through various texts presenting an

Arminian understanding of security. Which strikes me as odd because the

Arminian perspective is that of course you can truly be in Christ, truly be a

Christian, and yet lose your salvation. So what kind of a security can you have?

And he worked through this tremendous text beginning in verse 31 of Romans chapter 8.

So that's what prompted my thoughts this evening. We'll take a look at it briefly and then I'll tell you what he had to say.

And we can basically just rejoice together that we don't suffer under that kind of teaching. You know that Romans 8 .28

-30 is called the Golden Chain of Redemption. We'll go ahead and read it, though we probably all have it memorized.

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

For those who before knew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

These whom He predestined, He also called. These whom He called, He also justified. These whom

He justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say of these things? If God is for us, who is against us?

He did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all. How are we not also with Him, freely give us all things?

Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies. Who is the one who condemns?

Christ Jesus is He who died. Yes, rather, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Who will separate us from the love of Christ? From tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Just as it is written, For your sake we are being put to death all day long, and we were considered as sheep to be slaughtered. Then all these things we overwhelmingly conquered through Him who loved us.

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, or any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our

Lord. We know that after this tremendous golden chain of redemption that finishes in verse 30, we have this explication, this explanation based upon Paul's rhetorically asking,

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?

Now clearly there is a specific audience in mind. Clearly this is not, this is family language, this is not language that can be used by those who remain in their rebellion against God.

Already in verse 28 there had been a discussion about those who love God, who are the called according to His purpose.

We're going to see very clearly in verse 33 that the us here is the elect. And so there is a very specific audience in mind here.

And if God is for us, who is against us? Why could there be no one who could be against God's people?

Because of what it says, He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will we not also with Him freely give us all things?

So here you have not only the self -giving of the Son, the giving up this term to deliver

Him is normally used in sacrificial language. He delivered Him over for us all, which

I'm not trying to go through everything in the text, because I don't want to get into the Arminian misunderstanding, but I just noticed that in passing this is a tremendous text on particular redemption.

It is very clear that the giving of the Son here, He is given over for us all, the us here is very clearly defined,

He is delivered over for us all. It's His own Son that has been delivered over for us.

And it is in Him that He gives us all things. Clearly, God does not give all things to every single person in this universe.

There are those who justly experience God's wrath, or as they say in Australian, wrath.

So they say, and I guess we're the ones, there are a lot of men out on that one, it's UK and Australia, it's all wrath, and we're the only ones who have this odd pronunciation of wrath.

But anyway, God's wrath comes against them justly and properly.

It is only to God's people that free grace is given.

But notice these are very personal things. Can you imagine, if you're thinking ahead, try to think of this in the

Arminian understanding, to where the elect is just simply a nameless, faceless group. It would be like if we talked about the electors at the election of the president.

The only person who knows who the electors are is Roxanne. She's the only one who knows. Nobody else knows.

I mean, does anybody else in here even look at the list? Nobody knows. They're just those people.

They go and do something and they vote and it's a circumstance. Nobody else knows. From the

Arminian perspective, this elect group is just a nameless, faceless group.

God has said, well if you get into this group, then these things will be yours. But it's up to you whether you get in, and it's up to you whether you stay in.

So keep that in mind as you think of these words. Who could really say if God is for us, who is against us?

Only those people who can work up the faith to stay in this group.

If you remain faithful, then you're in this group. But you've got to work that up.

That's you. Faith can't be a divine gift. It's not the work of the Holy Spirit. It's got to come out of you, you see.

And so, he did not spare his own son for a group. A nameless, faceless group.

That we would have proper grounds for even asking how God can know from eternity past who's going to be in it.

If it's all up to man. I mean, think about it. If God can really know what man's going to do, is man really free?

That's why the open theists go the direction they do. He did not spare his own son, but delivered him over for us all.

Well, I thought he was delivered over for every single human being. How's there any difference? From the

Arminian perspective. Who will bring a charge against God's elect?

How do you bring a charge against nameless, faceless people? How can you even discuss bringing a charge outside of just simply general sin?

Well, they're all sinners. It has to be just a general concept. When the text says who will bring a charge against God's elect,

God is the one who justifies it. And here's where the system really breaks down as far as I can tell. Because Dr.

Craig likes to try to defend Sola Fide. Justification by faith alone.

But, that's not a group thing, is it? It's not a group that is justified by faith.

Because only individuals exercise faith. And so it really breaks down, just as the golden chain of redemption breaks down in the

Arminian scheme. Because you can't have the same audience all the way through it. They have to have a general universal call, and then individual justification, individual glorification.

It falls apart at that point. In the same way, here, I don't see how this can even begin to hold together.

God is the one who justifies. Who does God justify? I suppose on some level you could say, well, there is a cosmic justification of the elect or something like that.

But that's not what Paul's been discussing in the book of Romans. He's been talking about the

God who justifies. And who does he justify? The one who has faith in Jesus.

So it's very individual. It's very personal. This declaration of being free of condemnation, of being right with the judge, is not made for a faceless group that you can go in and out of.

It becomes impersonal in that way. It's not a word of justification about you.

It becomes a word of justification about a group that you can be in and out of. And if our justification is the grounds of our peace with God, and it is,

Romans 5 .1, therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

If that's no longer a personal justification, if that's no longer a personal proclamation, then

I'm right with God. But it's just, well, anyone who fulfills these conditions in this group is right with God.

The entire character of the gospel changes. That's why it's not overly shocking to me that in listening to this man speaking a number of months ago, as he laid out different schemes of justification, faith, etc.,

etc., he had the Calvinistic view, and the opposite of that for him was the counsel of Trent.

And he opted for a modified view of the counsel of Trent versus the

Calvinistic view. I think most of you know that the Reformers, when

Arminianism took shape and form, just identified it as a hopeless return to Roman Catholicism because, in essence, that's what it is in many ways.

So it becomes impersonal. God is the one who justifies. Who is the one who condemns Christ? Jesus is he who died, yes, rather, who was raised.

Who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. For whom does

Christ intercede? How can Christ intercede for a nameless, faceless group when the identity of that group changes dependent upon human action?

How does that work? What's the nature of that intercession? What's the result of that intercession?

In fact, we might well ask, how can we have intercession when

Hebrews tells us that Jesus is able to save to the uttermost, or completely, those who draw nigh unto

God through him? And yet, from the Arminian perspective, he's interceding for this group, but he can't keep people in the group.

People can enter and leave, all because of what? What is the key issue of Arminian synergism?

It's the free will of man. That is the idol. That is the key power of everything.

It's to protect the almighty will of man. But at what cost?

A change of the doctrine of justification. A change of intercession. This impersonal idea that the election spoken of in Ephesians chapter 1 is of a group, not of individuals.

Now don't get me wrong, there's many times, right here, who will bring a charge against God's elect?

Is that a group? Of course it's a group. You can talk about the elect of God as a group, but that doesn't make the group's identity impersonal or unknown to God.

That's the key difference. From the Arminian perspective, it's just a group, and man determines the identity of the people in it.

Biblically, it is a group, but it is a distinct group, known to God, not because he just looks down the corridors of time and sees what man's doing.

But what does Ephesians 1 say? It is based upon his good will.

The pleasure of his good will. Not the pleasure of man's good will, if there is such a thing.

And so this beautiful text, who will separate us from the love of Christ? There's a reason why

Arminianism has led to universalism in most of its forms, especially in Europe. Because when you really boil it down to its essence, you've either got to just abandon

Biblical teachings and reach for universalism, or recognize this system gives you absolutely no grounds for hope.

Because when you really think through, what they're saying is, who will separate us from the love of Christ? Well, who's us?

Well, it's not me individually. It's me if I do this, if I do that, if I remain faithful.

And since you can't have a divine faith, you can't have a will of God that's being accomplished and bring a certain people to salvation, then it's you, you, you.

God's already tried his best. God's put out 100%. The deciding factor is you.

And so as I listened to this, and I noticed this is in a church, his own church, that this is going on, and I noticed in his class, he has

Bob the Calvinist, and he has another guy who's a Catholic. Boy, do they ask interesting questions of the same material.

And they're always contrasting, as you'd expect. The irony is that you can tell

Dr. Craig doesn't, he wants to be constantly saying something about Roman Catholicism, but his theology is closer there than it is over here to the

Calvinist class. And so I was listening to this today, as I listened to the very personal promises found here in this text, being taken away from people by simply saying, no, no, no, no.

The identity of the elect, we can't leave that in God's hands. That has to be man's decision.

And I just thought, at what cost do you maintain this myth of man's autonomy?

If you're willing to give up promises like this, how far will you go?

I'm so thankful that we don't labor under that misapprehension, so when we read this text, we can see that God's love indeed has been set upon us.