TPW #5 | Historical Arminianism And Errors On The Atonement

Paul warns that evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse, deceiving one another and being deceived.

The reason Paul told Timothy that was because he needed to be ready to spend the balance of his life in uninterrupted warfare for the truth.

The most dangerous people alive today are always, always, always ordained ministers.

They're the most dangerous people in the world, especially the ones that people think are Christians, who will sell you theological poison to the damnation of your soul.

Folks, I just want to warn you about something. Every heretic in the entire history of the church, without exception, has taught their heresy in the name of being faithful to Scripture.

But what happened when Jesus was nailed to the cross? That was the day of wrath. That was the day of judgment.

That is the day of final salvation, brought back in time and applied to us once for all at the moment of our effectual calling when we repent and believe in our unity to Christ.

Welcome to the Protestant Witness. I am your host, Pastor Patrick Hines of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church in Kingsport, Tennessee.

Continuing on our series on what is historical Arminianism. As I said in previous programs,

I don't think many people know what Arminianism even is. The term Arminian is used to describe beliefs and ideas that would have been foreign to Arminius himself and were certainly foreign to the

Remonstrants who leveled their five protestations against the Reformed churches in the

Netherlands back in the early 17th century. So I want to help people understand what we're really talking about when we address historical

Arminian theology. You may recall in a previous episode we looked at an article in the

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology by Arminian theologian J. Kenneth Greider, where he is upset about the idea that Calvinistic ideas like the penal substitutionary atonement have in recent decades spilled over into Arminian theology.

And so people need to know that historic Arminian theology does not believe in the substitutionary atonement.

And for the record, I just want to be as clear as I can. If you do not believe in the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ, you cannot possibly be a

Christian. Because a Christian is someone who sees the depth of their own sin. They can see that they are sinful and fall short of God's glory.

Because the law of God has exposed their sin and has shown them all the ways in which they have disobeyed

God and thus they are under the just condemnation of God. The only way that sinners could be saved from this plight is if God were to take upon himself human flesh, which he did thankfully in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and obey all of the preceptive righteousness of the law, what

Romans chapter 8 verses 3 and 4 calls the righteous requirements of the law. You may recall also

Galatians chapter 4 verses 4 and 5 speaks of when the fullness of time had come,

God sent forth his son born of a woman, born under the law to redeem those who were under the law that we might receive the adoption of sons.

And so this whole idea of Christ taking the penalty, the punishment, the judicial sanction of the law of God upon himself at the cross, that is essential to understanding what it means for a person to be reconciled to God and made right with God and justified before God.

The law of God, I mean the the entire Bible reads like a legal document.

The Bible starts out with man and being in covenant with God. God enters into a covenant of life with Adam and all of his posterity in him and Adam fails to obey and thus he brings upon himself and his posterity the covenant sanction of not only physical but eternal and spiritual death.

So the whole issue of substitutionary atonement is absolutely essential to Christianity and what

I've told friends that I've talked to just in the past, you know, a couple decades who would describe themselves as believing in free will and that in the final analysis it is man's autonomous independent act of faith or other things that are done independently of God that are the decisive force in salvation.

I have tried to tell them that you really can't hold together the idea of a substitutionary atonement that has infinite intrinsic saving value together with the idea of man's autonomous freedom being the decisive factor in salvation.

And the reason for that is if you begin to look very seriously at what the scriptures teach us about the nature of the atonement and look at the key terms that are used to describe it, namely sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption, those terms are always spoken of in Scripture not as hypothetical but as actual real accomplishments.

Actual real accomplishments on the part of God towards his people and the people for whom

Jesus died. Romans chapter 3, for example, has what the commentator

Leon Morris calls the greatest paragraph ever written in verses 21 through 26.

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested being witnessed by the law and the prophets even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe for there is no distinction for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus whom

God displayed publicly as a propitiation in his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness because in the forbearance of God he passed over the sins previously committed for the demonstration

I say of his righteousness at the present time so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

That term propitiation the term hilasterion refers to a sacrifice which actually takes away divine wrath.

It actually does it. It's not hypothetical but it actually takes it away, and that's why Arminians who have been consistent the

Arminians who are consistent with the overarching principles of their religious beliefs eventually will discard the idea of a substitutionary atonement altogether because they have to they have to reject that idea because if you have an atonement of real true propitiatory infinite intrinsic saving worth then everyone that Jesus did that for is going to heaven

Everyone he did that for is going to heaven and it accomplishes nothing to say well, but but they never received it

Think about this if someone was on death row and they were sentenced to die by lethal injection and the judge makes the assertion makes the assertion that I will accept the death of this other individual in their place if They're willing to die and that person steps up onto the gurney and they they lethally inject him with the chemicals that bring about his death

Whether that individual ever received it or not is irrelevant the penalty has been paid

That's the problem now people immediately will say well, that's not that's not an illustration the Bible uses

It doesn't need to use it when you look at the terms Look at what redemption means look at what apalutrosis means redemption look at what reconciliation means propitiation sacrifice

Look at what those terms actually are referring to and you'll see you cannot have Jesus doing this for everyone in the human race

Now the Great Reformation really recovered the centrality and the glory and the greatness of the atonement of Christ and it was especially brought forward here in The cannons of Dorp and so I want to get into the second point

Here today the second point the second main point of doctrine that the Arminian remonstrance the protesters

Wanted revised in the Belgic Confession in the Heidelberg Catechism They wanted this to be removed is the idea that Christ died only for his elect people and not in behalf of the entire human race

And so this head of doctrine in the cannons of Dorp is called Christ's death and human redemption through it article number one the punishment which

God's justice requires God is not only supremely merciful But also supremely just his justice requires as he has revealed himself in the word that the sins

We have committed against his infinite majesty be punished with both temporal and eternal punishments of soul as well as body

We cannot escape these punishments unless satisfaction is given to God's justice.

Okay, that's the first article. Amen. That's exactly correct article 2 the satisfaction made by Christ Since however, we ourselves cannot give this satisfaction or deliver ourselves from God's anger

God and his boundless mercy has given us as a guarantee his only begotten Son Who was made to be sin and a curse for us in our place on the cross in order that he might give?

satisfaction for us Amen, exactly. Correct article number three the infinite value of Christ's death

This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins

It is of infinite value and worth more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world article for reasons for this infinite value

This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is and was

Necessary to be our Savior not only a true and perfectly holy man But also the only begotten

Son of God of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God's anger and curse which we by our sins had fully deserved article 5 the mandate to proclaim the gospel to all

Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ shall not perish but have eternal life this promise together with the command to repent and believe ought to be announced and declared without Differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people to whom

God and his good pleasure sends the gospel article 6 unbelief man's responsibility

However that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ But perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient

But because they themselves are at fault article 7 faith

God's gift But all who genuinely believe and are delivered and saved by Christ's death from their sins and from Destruction receive this favor solely from God's grace, which he owes to no one given to them in Christ from eternity article 8 the saving effectiveness of Christ's death

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father That the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones in order that he might

Grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation In other words

It was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross By which he confirmed the new covenant should effectively redeem from every people tribe nation and language all those and only those

Who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father? That he should grant them faith which like the

Holy Spirit's other saving gifts. He acquired for them by his death But I can't emphasize to you how important that last sentence is

Faith in Jesus Christ is a blood purchased gift of Christ for his elect people

Faith is not our independent contribution to the equation to make it work

Okay, listen to that again that he should grant them faith which like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts

He acquired for them by his death that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins both original and actual whether committed before or after their coming to faith that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end and that he should finally present them to himself a glorious people without spot or wrinkle article 9 the fulfillment of God's plan

This plan arising out of God's eternal love for his chosen ones from the beginning of the world to the present time

Has been powerfully carried out and will also be carried out in the future the gates of hell seeking vainly to prevail against it

As a result the chosen are gathered into one all in their own time And there is always a church of believers founded on Christ's blood a church which steadfastly loves persistently worships and Here and in all eternity praises him as her

Savior who laid down his life for her on the cross as a bridegroom for his bride and Quote amen.

Amen. Amen. You gotta love that stuff. These guys knew what they were talking about now The issue of the

Atonement and who Jesus died for is a very very important topic And so we need to go into the section now on the rejection of errors

Don't know we get member when we go into the rejection of errors. We're talking about the beliefs of what a historic

Arminianism was all about this is what they were rejecting Having set forth the Orthodox teaching the

Synod rejects the errors of those Number one who teach that God the Father Appointed his son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name

So that the necessity usefulness and worth of what Christ's death obtained Could have stood intact and altogether perfect complete and whole

Even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual these

Arminians we're saying that Christ's death on the cross was not intended to Actually save anyone as J.

Kenneth Greider said in the article the death of Jesus makes everyone Savable and that's it.

So the death of Christ can do what it does Had it been completely ineffective and every human being in the entire race of man died in their sins and went to hell

Okay, obviously that is not a proper position to hold I remember years ago reading a tract called was anyone saved at the cross and I'd never really thought about that question and When when you think hard about it, the

Arminians really have to say to that question. No was anyone saved at the cross? No They weren't actually saved there

The everything that was needed was put sort of in place that the machinery was set up the system was set up and thrown out

But without the free will autonomous independent cooperation of man the death of Christ is completely in vain

Okay, listen to what the synod goes on to say here in this first point for this assertion that the assertion that Christ died without the intention of actually saving anyone is an

Insult to the wisdom of God the Father and to the merit of Jesus Christ and it is contrary to Scripture For the

Savior speaks as follows. I lay down my life for the sheep and I know them that's John chapter 10 verse 15 and 27 that text of Scripture I think is devastating to the idea of a universal

Atonement Jesus is very clear in that text. He is addressing Specifically who he lays his life down for and he limits it to the sheep

When his opponents later on in John chapter 10 as you get into the upper 20s of the verses there

They they begin to express their unbelief Jesus tells them you do not believe because you are not of my sheep

You see what he's saying their unbelief was because they were not his sheep and who does

Jesus lay his life down for the sheep? He doesn't lay his life down for everybody He only lays his life down for the sheep and the reason those men did not believe is they were not of his sheep

As a very insightful man once said you don't say Baba to become a sheep you say

Baba because you are a sheep He goes on here The synod goes on and Isaiah the

Prophet says concerning the Savior when he shall make himself an offering for sin He shall see his offspring

He shall prolong his days and the will of Yahweh shall prosper in his hand

Isaiah 53 10 Finally this undermines the article of the creed in which we confess what we believe concerning the church.

Now, that's the end of the first Error here. Isn't that interesting the way that they put that? To say that Jesus was sent into the world without a definite number of individually elected people who were elected by name

Individually from all eternity to be the sheep of Christ for whom he would give his life That is to deny the line of the

Apostles Creed I believe in the church. I Believe in one holy Universal and apostolic church.

What is the church? What is the ecclesia? It is the called -out ones. What is the invisible church? It's all of God's elect

So really in the final analysis the Arminians do not believe in the church

The church is all of the elect that were chosen by God unconditionally for salvation before the foundation of the world given to Christ and entrusted to him

So if you don't believe that Jesus came Specifically to lay his life down for his sheep that he did not do what the angel told

Joseph in the dream in Matthew chapter 1 and you shall call his name Jesus for he will save his people

From their sins instead you will call his name Jesus because he will make salvation

Possible for everybody if they'll do X Y or Z. That's just no part of divine revelation So we do believe in the church.

We believe that God has an elect people. That is what the church is Okay, the second error They reject the errors of those who teach that the purpose of Christ's death was not to establish an actual fact a new covenant of grace

By his blood But only to acquire for the father the mere right to enter once more and do a covenant with men whether of grace or of works for this conflicts with scripture which teaches that Christ has become the guarantee and Mediator of a better that is a new covenant

Hebrews 722 and Hebrews 9 15 Hebrews 722 is a great text of scripture because it speaks about Jesus being the surety the

Guarantee of a better covenant that term surety that's used there in Hebrews 722 is speaking about Jesus being the legal representative of his people

Jesus takes on the legal Responsibility to make sure that all the demands are met all the demands of God's law are met in behalf of those whom he represents

That's what the whole idea of him being the the mediator of a better covenant He is the surety of it and the synod continues and that a will is enforced only when someone has died

So Christ died he is now the the testator of that covenant Okay point three they reject the errors of those who teach that Christ by the satisfaction which he gave

Did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which the satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation but only acquired for the father the authority or Plenary will to relate in a new way with men and to impose such new conditions as he chose

And that the satisfying of these conditions depends on the free choice of man Consequently that it was possible that either all or none

Would fulfill them This is a scandalous idea The Arminians were really saying that it was possible that God the

Father could send God the Son into the world to take on human flesh to go to the cross to die there to be buried and rise again and Ascend back to heaven and intercede right now and it actually not work for anyone it actually not save anybody

So we are rejecting the idea that Christ by the satisfaction that he gave at the cross only acquired for the father the ability to impose a few newer easier conditions, which if men freely meet them of their own accord then they could be saved and Here's the answer for they have too low an opinion of the death of Christ Yeah, I think so Listen to that again people who think that have too low of an opinion of the death of Christ Do not at all acknowledge the foremost fruit or benefit, which it brings forth and summon back from hell the

Pelagian error You hear what they're saying here they're saying that if you believe that what

Jesus did was he died for the sins of every single human being in the world and Now God is able to issue some easier conditions.

Okay, all you got to do now to go to heaven is just exercise faith Of your own accord without any interference from God Oh sure

Well, we'll say that prevenient grace is necessary to make it possible But the decisive factor is still man's autonomous free will the council fathers at door say that is

Bringing out of hell the Pelagian error So is it a big deal if people say that the decisive factor in our salvation is something that we did

Independently of God's decree and of God's sovereign will yes They saw that is ultimately to make men their own saviors

You can't say that you can't say that Well Christ did he did for everybody and now? God has given us easier conditions that we can now meet and then save ourselves

And as the council father said here that is too low of an opinion of the death of Christ It does not at all acknowledge the foremost fruit or benefit which it brings forth and summon back from hell the

Pelagian error You see Pelagian ism was condemned early on at the

Council of Orange 529 Semi -Pelagian ism Cassian ism

John Cassian and the quote -unquote semi -Pelagians. They were condemned as well Okay, and so what is

Pelagian ism? What is semi -Pelagian ism? It's the idea that men save themselves and I just want to say for the record as far as my own

Study of God's Word over the years and dealing with these issues. I really do not see a very big difference between saying that men save themselves and That men save themselves with help from God Because what's the decisive factor in both of those scenarios in the scenario number one men save themselves number two men save themselves with God's help

What's the difference between those two scenarios? Nothing really because what's the decisive factor in both man?

And then you have the biblical teaching God saves sinners as Paul says in 1st Timothy It is this is a faithful saying and worthy of all

Acceptation that God sent his son into the world to save sinners not to make their salvation possible or to open the door

But to save them so dying to save them Okay, the next point they reject the the errors of those regarding the

Atonement who teach That what is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with men through the intervening of Christ's death is

Not that we are justified before God and saved through faith insofar as it accepts Christ's merit But rather that God having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law counts faith itself and the imperfect obedience of faith as Perfect obedience to the law and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life

Hmm kind of reminds me of some of the things that John Piper has been saying God looks at this this the fruits of our faith

He calls it the obedience of faith as if that obedience is somehow accepted in the place of perfect obedience to the law and therefore is

Is worthy of eternal life or something like that? So they're rejecting the idea that what the new covenant is all about Is that we not that we're justified before God and saved through faith insofar as it accepts

Christ's merit But rather that God having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, which he could never do that folks

I want you to think about that if the Arminians are saying God has withdrawn he has just withdrawn his demand that we be perfect and Instead is willing to accept

Imperfect obedience or he'll count faith as Our new obedience or something like that.

That is to reject what the scripture teaches That is to reject what God's Word teaches God in his character as holy is immutable

God Cannot withdraw the demands of the law. He cannot delete what his character requires from us

He demands and requires from us Perfect righteousness, that's why when

Jesus was expositing the law in Matthew chapter 5 in the Sermon on the Mount he says in Matthew 5 48 Therefore you shall be perfect Even as your father in heaven is perfect So God can't withdraw his demand that we be perfectly obedient to the law and instead count our obedience of a our imperfect obedience of faith as The grounds of our salvation that's just not possible and the reason it's not listen to their reasoning here from scripture

They contradict scripture. They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus whom

God presented as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood and along with the ungodly

Sosinus these Sosinians they introduce a new and foreign Justification of man before God against the consensus of the whole church

We are not justified on account of or on the basis of faith

We are justified through faith faith is simply the laying hold of Jesus Christ Faith only justifies us insofar as it embraces the saving object of that faith

Jesus Christ And so in a BB Warfield has some wonderful stuff on that that it's not even properly speaking faith in Christ that saves us

But that Christ saves us through faith, so there's nothing meritorious or virtuous about faith faith is simply

Laying hold of Jesus. We are saved by Jesus Christ Not by our act of faith faith is simply the instrumental cause

The the link by which we are united to Christ and thus have his righteousness

Imputed to us and his satisfaction at the cross accepted as our own Okay fifthly they reject the errors of those who teach that all people have been received into the state of Reconciliation and into the grace of the

Covenant so that no one on account of original sin is liable to condemnation Or is to be condemned, but that all are free from the guilt of this sin for this opinion conflicts with Scripture Which asserts that we are by nature children of wrath

That's Ephesians chapter 2 verse 3 Sixthly they reject the errors of those who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in Order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God as far as he is concerned

Wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ's death, but that the distinction by which some rather Than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice

Which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately But does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them so that they rather than others apply that grace to themselves

For while pretending to set forth this distinction in an acceptable sense. They attempt to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism You hear that what this article here article number six that they are rejecting under the heading of Christ Atonement This is what almost everybody believes today

This is what almost everybody believes today That God as far as he is concerned He wanted to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ's death

But that there's a distinction between obtaining and applying Listen to how it said here again

But that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free

Choice but not depend but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them

So that they rather than others apply that grace to themselves You see what is why do they keep calling this

Pelagianism because it locates the decisive factor in salvation in man the creature not in God and That's what

Pelagianism is all about historically. And so they're not saying yeah, this is a bit of a mistake Yeah, this is not this is not okay, but but these you know, these folks are still they're still

Christians and they're still our brothers they're saying these people are feeding people the deadly poison of Pelagianism and so it's not a small matter.

This is a huge problem Now I will I will make this one statement though. I was a

I was a Christian I did understand That Jesus was my only hope and I had no no confidence at all

It ain't in my works or I didn't even you know rely upon my faith My confidence was in Christ alone for several years before I became a

Calvinist But once someone walked me through all these passages, I saw it very clearly and I knew wow

God is the one who came after me. I mean he he is the one who worked this in me No one is able who dice do not

I no one is able to come to me Unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day

God is the one who drew me to himself all that the father gives me will come to me.

Jesus said in John 637 and to say that we independently of God Come to Christ and therefore make the benefits of his cross work

Effective for ourselves is as the council father say here to give people the deadly poison of Pelagianism Now there there's not many people today who are willing to say well our minionism is a form of Pelagianism But the fact is it is and our council fathers here were correct and pointing this out and so again

This is nothing new and this is what most people believe today God wanted to save everybody but you know, he put the put the

Atonement out there and then others by their own free choice Make it effective and thus they they apply the grace of God effectively to themselves by their own free will rather than God being the one who terrorizes our souls and who opens our blind eyes and who effectually calls us and regenerates us and takes out the heart of stone and gives us a heart of flesh and draws us irresistibly to Christ and Thus to God alone be the glory for our salvation

Okay, seventhly they the council fathers reject the errors of those who teach that Christ neither could die nor had to die

Nor did die for those whom God so dearly loved and chose to eternal life since such people do not need the death of Christ For they contradict the

Apostle who says Christ loved me and gave himself up for me And likewise who will bring any charge against those whom

God has chosen. It is God who justifies who is he that condemns Romans 8 31 to 33 it is

Christ who died that is for them And I think that passage is is very very important. If you have your

Bible, I want you to look at this this is a text of scripture years ago that really jarred me and helped me see the

Explicit nature of the reality that Jesus's death upon the cross is a real atonement in behalf of his elect people

Yeah, I think it's unfortunate that it's couched as Unlimited versus limited atonement as if we're somehow limiting the grace of God or limiting the effectiveness of the atonement

The way I've always presented to people is it's a difference between real atonement and no atonement Did Christ Actually atone for anyone or not.

Did he actually save anyone or not? Okay, listen to Romans chapter 8 after describing the the glorious wonderful truth of Unconditional predestination

And God's electing grace the passage says in verse 31 What shall we say to these things if God is for us who can be against us now?

You need to ask yourself. What is the antecedent of the pronoun us in that text? Well, it's all the people who were foreknown and predestined called

Justified and glorified in other words none other than God's elect If God is for us meaning

God's elect who can be against us verse 32 He who did not spare his own son, but delivered him over for us all who is the us all here?

Well that the pronoun us all has as its antecedent the elect still Delivered him up for us all how will he not also with him freely give us all things?

What is the antecedent of us the elect? verse 33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect there?

It's made even more clear. God is the one who justifies who is he who condemns Christ Jesus is he who died yay?

Rather who is raised who is at the right hand of God who also intercedes for us who is the us?

What is the antecedent to contextually grammatically of us the elect? the elect

Who will separate us from the love of Christ who is the us again follow the pronouns follow the antecedent?

Who is the us the elect? Who will separate us from the love of Christ and so forth and so on it's wonderful stuff

It's some of the most comforting and magnificent glorious stuff anyone could ever even think about The council fathers go on this is the end of point number of this article number seven that rejecting the errors of those who teach

They also contradict the Savior who asserts. I lay down my life for the sheep in John 10 15 and My command is this love one another as I have loved you greater love has no one than this

That one lay down his life for his friends and Who are the friends of Christ?

Who are the friends of Christ the friends of Christ are the sheep and why did Jesus's opponents?

Not believe in him. Why did they not believe? Because they were not of his sheep

So there you have the end of the second main point of doctrine there the

Arminians Really were in the final analysis rejecting the whole idea of a real penal substitutionary atonement now in Hopefully some future episodes we're gonna go into some of the teachings of John Miley and we're gonna look at the

BB Warfield's critique of Miley There's a really great book called the Lion of Princeton about the life of BB Warfield Who was the great

Princeton theologian and invented the word inerrancy Warfield is one of my favorite Theologians because he's he's so clear and incisive

But dr. Kim riddle Barker did his doctoral dissertation on Warfield and not that book it's available on Kindle and I've been

I've been reading through the section on Arminian ism and making highlights and making notes because I want to Bring up some of the things that John Miley who was an

Arminian systematician and Arminian systematic theologian Some of the things that he says and some of the things that Warfield points out

Because the main thing that Warfield brings forward He says the the thing that makes John Miley's two -volume systematic theology

Miley the Arminian theologian the thing that makes that that systematic theology so helpful is that Miley very carefully points out and documents why

Arminian ism is not compatible with Reformation thinking at all Now there are so many today who want to be considered to be evangelicals, you know,

Roger Olson Who is an Arminian? In fact, I read his book Arminian theology myths and realities a friend gave it to me and I forced myself to read the whole book but he was all upset because the

Alliance of confessing evangelicals did not invite him to be part of their group and the point that the

Alliance made is that Arminian ism can't be evangelical it is not consistent with the biblical doctrine of grace and What I've tried so hard in my own ministry to detail to people is that when the

New Testament Uses the term chorus when it uses the term grace that we are saved by grace. I want you to think about it this way

What does grace mean in the ultimate sense when we say that we are saved by grace? We are talking about unconditional electing grace

It is Unconditional electing grace when we say we believe that salvation is by grace.

We are saying that it is by Unconditional election that God Unconditionally chose us you see if you lose the doctrine of unconditional election

You cannot argue that salvation is by grace alone You just can't and in fact

I've argued and have preached this as as fiercely and as biblically as I can possibly preach and teach it That if you lose the doctrine of unconditional election, you don't have the biblical notion of grace at all

Grace is not an aid To enable us to do in ourselves independently of God that which is necessary to procure our salvation

That's what the Roman Catholic religion taught. That's what the Arminians taught and that's why the council fathers

Continually make the charge against the Arminian party. You all are feeding people the poison of Pelagianism you are bringing out of hell the

Pelagian error. Did you hear they said that? The idea that what Christ died to save every single human being in the entire race of man

He took away the wrath of God and took the full punishment of sin away and he put that out there and if men will use their free will to enact that grace and apply it to themselves and they can

Be saved the council fathers at Dort said that is Pelagianism because it locates the decisive factor in salvation in the creature not in God And you see that's what the

Reformation was all about That's why Martin Luther's treatise the bondage of the will is such an important book and it's sad to me that Lutheranism in the years after the death of Luther did not follow

The very strong Augustinian position that spelled out by Luther in the bondage of the will but instead followed the compromised position of Philip Melanchthon It's a tragic thing because when you read

Luther's very strong position biblical position that he spells out in the bondage of the will He sounds just like us.

He sounds just like a Calvinist. He sounds a lot like Augustine in his mature thought And so folks these are not small matters

Now is it possible for someone to be a Christian and not understand election yet? Yeah, of course I think there's a lot of people who are who are very confused about why they believe in Jesus They they just know that they do.

Yeah, my confidence is only in Christ I'm not trusting in my works and but I don't understand why

I believed in Jesus And I'll tell you this when I was a young man when I was even before I think before I was a

Christian I don't think I was actually converted until I was 18 years old. But when I was 14 15 and 16, I remember listening in youth group

Meetings and thinking what what are they talking? How can you really say? that it is by grace alone that we're saved when we really believe that the

Decisive point is our own free will and I also didn't understand after having all this

Decisional regeneration stuff pumped into me when I was a kid. I did not understand. Why why do we pray for people's salvation?

We have decisional regeneration pumped into us all day long and then the youth leaders would ask us So do you guys have the names of any friends or family that aren't

Christians so we can pray for their salvation? And I remember raising my hand saying why would we do that?

While we do what while we pray for their salvation God can't save them. What are we actually asking

God to do? Are we asking him to knock down the knobblest door and change their hearts by his own sovereign power?

I thought the Holy Spirit was a perfect gentleman and the Jesus was standing on the door and the knobs on the inside yada yada, yada

It doesn't make any sense Becoming reformed becoming a Calvinist evangelism finally made sense

Prayer finally made sense when I pray for people's salvation I'm praying to a God that I believe can save them and that he will use my prayers.

He decrees our prayers He decrees our tears and our evangelistic efforts and our proclamation of the gospel to bring about his purposes

You see why as a Calvinist as a reformed man. My focus is always going to be on the text of Scripture It's always going to be on getting the message, right?

Because only the true gospel can save people only that one true living saving gospel can save people

So I hope this has been helpful to you Obviously, there's much much more we could talk about with regard to the Atonement but we could talk about the priestly work of Christ and of course

John Owens magnificent book the death of death and the death of Christ and his exploration of that in Hebrews 5 6 7 8 9 10 just glorious glorious divine revelation about the

Obtaining of redemption and Jesus Christ by one offering Hebrews 10 14 has perfected for all time

Those for whom he died and so forth and so forth But I hope that what you've seen and what you've heard in this podcast today is that what historical

Arminianism represented really was an abandonment of the biblical doctrine of the

Atonement and Their system etitions who codified this and thought it through more consistently in later generations as we will see

Discarded the theory of the penal substitutionary Atonement altogether and rejected it and repudiated it so much so that you have

Arminian theologians like Jay Kenneth Greider who in his article on Arminianism describes

Jesus paying the penalty for sin as quote a spillover from Calvinism end quote

So those of you who wear the label Arminian and believe in a substitutionary Atonement I just want you to know that your own best thinkers and theologians from that perspective

Jettisoned that idea a long long time ago Biblically speaking there is no

Christianity without a substitutionary Atonement And so I hope that this podcast has been helpful to you.

We'll try to get into more detail here We're gonna go through the rest of the canons of Dort the third and fourth and fifth points of doctrine here

And then we'll get into some stuff by Warfield and Miley and their interactions And I think that especially

John Miley is going to really surprise some people in terms of the things that he said and put in writing In terms of his own admission that Arminianism as a theological system does not and cannot coexist

With evangelicalism at all. So I hope this has been helpful and I look forward to being with you next time on the