Now that is an interesting question. Roger Olson asked, "If Christ's death satisfied God's justice for all, why aren't all saved? Arminius answers: 'For the sins of those for whom Christ died were in such manner condemned in the flesh of Christ, that they by that fact are not delivered from condemnation, unless they actually believe on Christ.'

"In other words, God decided that the sins of all people would be expiated by Christ's death in such a way that only if people believe on Christ would their sins actually be forgiven. But Christ's death actually did reconcile God to sinful humanity [2 Cor. 5.19]; however the communication of the benefits of that reconciliation ~ reconciliation of persons to God, pardon and justification, regeneration ~ depend on human belief:

What is Free Will?

It may seem strange to some that there even is a debate as to what constitutes free will. The average person believes that he has free will. Whenever he is confronted with a choice he believes that he can either choose this way or that, and that either choice is a real possibility. In fact, this is what we generally think of when using the word choice. We think of the power to choose between alternatives. But the simple concepts of choice and free will have unfortunately been confused and complicated by Calvinists. As a result of their commitment to exhaustive determinism, Calvinists deny that the will is free in the sense that most people would naturally understand it to be. Yet, they refuse to jettison these commonly used terms despite holding to a theology that denies these concepts as normally understood.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ, for we are the blessed in all spiritual blessings, in the heavenly things, in Christ, seeing that He chose us in Him before the inception of the world to be holy and unblemished within His presence in love, thus predestining us into adoption to Him through Jesus Christ, according to the good judgement of His will in praise of His glory and His grace by which He favoured us in love.

In Daniel Whedon's Comentary on Romans 9, he argues that Paul's quotations of the old testament support the Arminian view of the passage. In some ways, I found Whedon to be a prototype of more recent Arminian explanations of the passage. Specifically, his digging into the context of "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" in Exodus 32-33 was a big step in the right direction. Whedon explains the verses and then refutes Barnes' (a Calvinist) view. He notes the Calvinist interpretation of defending God's justice is really a "might makes right" kind of view. He objects: "Power increased infinitely cannot change right. A creature can be supposedly wronged by even an infinite being. The predesinarian interpretation makes Paul pretend to give a reason, but really resorts to force, and seeks to frighten his opponents out of reasoning."

"His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied: 'Praise be the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come to his people and redeemed them. He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (as he said through his holy prophets of long ago), salvation comes from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us ~ to show mercy to our ancestors and to remember his holy covenant, the oath he swore to our father Abraham: to rescue us from the hand of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear in holiness and righteousness before him all our days'" (Luke 1. 67-75 TNIV, and henceforth).

Admittedly, no systematic theology is perfect. That takes a load of pressure off of every sincere Bible student. Not one of us will ever have all of his or her doctrines correct. C. I. Scofield wrote that there will always exist a measure of false teaching in true, orthodox Christianity, due to our fallen nature and our design as finite creatures.

I was once convinced that Calvinism was right because people showed me a lot of proof texts to propagate this theology. I had read Chosen by God by R. C. Sproul and concluded that he, too, was correct. How could I have missed out on this teaching for so long? I will never forget what affect Sproul's book had on my heart. How could God have chosen me and not others? Moreover, why would God have chosen me and not others?

The Bible Tools, "Sabbath-keeping, non-Trinitarian" post I was viewing read, "God Himself has kept Israel from seeing and hearing (understanding and applying) His truth, giving Israel a spirit of slumber to make possible the salvation of the Gentiles. He has determined to call and choose only a limited number from Israel in this age, allowing the rest to remain blinded . . ."

According to this errant view, the only way for God to offer salvation to the Gentiles was to blind Israel from seeing and hearing His truth (which is contradictory to its own thesis, as will be pointed out momentarily). Poor God: He cannot seem to save people without damning others; and His gospel does not seem to contain the life-changing power it boasts (Rom. 1.16) without God first regenerating the sinner.

Paul, and apostle of Jesus Christ through God's will. To the saints: the residents in Ephesus and the faithful in Christ Jesus: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul uses three terms to denote the recipants of his letter: saints, residents, and faithful. I found it very difficult to determine the exact relationship between these three denotations, and I found that most translations simply skipped the second (residents). But I feel that this misses the relationship between being 'in Ephesus' and 'in Christ Jesus' which is a bit more obvious in the Greek, and I wanted to tease this out.

In Joseph Agar Beet's commentary on Romans 9 (pages 255 -288 in his A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans) he explains that Paul is teaching that God's plan was to save through the Gospel not the Law. Beet is a good author - he asks good questions and gets right to the point. I love the way he explains why the word 'faith' doesn't appear in the first part of the text. "Paul puts, not faith, but Him that calls, in contrast to works. For God's purpose is no more a result of faith than of works." The objection in verse 14 is that "we are working so hard and God is letting in believers who hadn't been previously working". Paul responds by explaining God is being merciful, so merit doesn't come into play. Beet sees hardening as a punishment for prior sins that makes obedience more difficult, but not impossible.

The following comments are quoted from the NET Bible (The Net Bible - Copyright (2004) Biblical Studies Foundation. The home page of the NET Bible is http://www.bible.org/category.php?scid=5&category_id=71&parent_id=0). They are completely consistent with an Arminian understanding of God's hardening of human hearts.

On Isaiah 6:10

Arminius wrote, "Not only does the very nature of God and of things themselves, but likewise the Scriptures and experience do evidently show that Providence belongs to God. But Providence denotes some property of God, not a quality, or . . . a capability, or a habit; but it is an act which is not ad intra nor internal, but which is ad extra and external; and which is about an object . . . different from God, and that is not united to Him from all eternity in His understanding, but as separate and really existing."1

The ordo salutis is the "order of salvation." It focuses on the process of salvation and the logical order of that process. The main difference between the Arminian and Calvinist ordo concerns faith and regeneration. Strictly speaking, faith is not part of salvation in the Arminian ordo since it is the condition that is met prior to God's act of saving. All that follows faith is salvation in the Arminian ordo while in the Calvinist ordo faith is the result of salvation in some sense. What follows is how I see the Arminian ordo compared to the Calvinist ordo along with why I find the Calvinist ordo theologically problematic.

Arminian ordo salutis:

Prevenient grace

Faith

[Union with Christ]

Justification

Regeneration

Sanctification

Glorification

Notes on Arminian ordo:

The ever insightful Calvin (click on the attachment):

Since we are now finished with I John, it is time to start a new book for this devotional series. I gave the matter some thought. Eventually I settled on the book of Ephesians, not because of its place within the A/C debate, but because I love its ecclesiology. In my mind, I've nicknamed Ephesians "the epistle of unity", much as I think of Philippians as "the epistle of joy" or I Corinthians as "the epistle of discipline".

In Frederic Louis Godet takes a “National Election” approach in his commentary on Romans 9. He summarizes the flow of Romans 9-11 as follows: “1. That of God's absolute liberty in regard to every alleged required right, upon Him, on man's part; this is the subject of chap. ix. 2. That of the legitimacy of the use which God has made of His liberty in the case in question; such is the subject of chap, x., where Paul shows that Israel by their want of understanding drew upon themselves the lot which has overtaken them. 3. That of the utility of this so unexpected measure: this forms the subject of chap, xi., where the beneficent consequences of Israel's rejection down to their glory one final result are unfolded.” Godet explains the chapter verse by verse and along the way he picks apart the grammatical details to draw out Paul’s point.

The following is an attempt at satire about stuff young Calvinists like. The idea came from this blog (which is funny but crass). Hopefully you will find this in good taste. :)

In most cases there is an obvious Arminian corollary. These are listed in italics.

The House Fire (Arminian version):
Once upon a time there was a house on fire. Inside were three children. The dad was outside, and went in to rescue his children. He helped one child get out, but the other two refused to come. They died in the fire. Afterwords, forensics determined that the fire was lit by the children inside the house. They were playing with matches.

The House Fire (Calvinist version):
Once upon a time there was a house on fire. Inside were three children. The dad was outside, and went in to rescue one child. He took one child out, and left the other two to burn. They died in the fire. Afterwords, forensics determined that the fire was deliberately lit by the dad. The dad admitted that he planned the whole thing because he wanted to be a hero. He also claimed that he started the fire, but not in such a way that it was his fault.

The biblical concept of mystery is simple. Mystery is an aspect of God's plan which has not been revealed to humanity. Indeed, the biblical usage of mystery is always in anticipation of the mystery's revelation. Therefore, biblically, the concept of mystery is intimately connected to revelation.

But we're not here to talk about the Bible. We're here to talk about Calvinism, something completely different.

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

Many Calvinists argue that if God wanted to save people through Christ’s death and they don’t end up saved, God failed. But God can’t fail. So Christ’s death was never intended to save all people.

It’s important to distinguish the objects of God's will. If He wants Himself to do something, His will is always done, for who can stop Him?

Daniel 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

But if He wants us to do something, His will may not be done.

Little children, guard yourselves from idols. -NAS

I have always thought that this sentence felt out of place in the letter. I mean, Jonah ends on a more satisfying note. It's seems like the last thing John does is introduce a new topic, and then stop before he develops it at all. It most certainly doesn't seem like an ending to a letter.

But it is not nearly as out of place as it may seem. I John overall is about Christian living, especially on what marks one as Christian as opposed to one of the world. This final instruction can be seen in that light: obstain from the gods of the world.

It is also important to follow the thoughts starting in verse 18. As a quick review, here again is the flow of John's final argument:

18. We know we are protected
19. We know that the world is dominated by evil
20. But we also know that Jesus is here now

Recently, a very close friend of mine became a Calvinist. It was to be expected though, since he immersed himself with MacArthur and Piper and did absolutely no comparative research...none, nada, zilch. I challenged him to cite just 1 book that he read which cross examines Calvinist theology, and he had nothing to offer but excuses. He then had the nerve to tell me that he has now been "enlightened," and now embraces the label: "Reformed." It's really disappointing and, unfortunately, it's also how many Christians end up turning to Calvinism, and then have the audacity to say that they "used to be Arminians," and "know what they teach" because they used to be one. The reality, however, is that they were never Arminians, but just ignorant on the subject entirely and then sucked up the dogmatic teachings of Calvinists like a Hoover vacuum cleaner. They were no match for the well-trained Calvinists and, having done virtually no comparative research, were easy pickings.

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

Owen’s Argument 2:

P1: If Christ death is for everyone, and saves those that believe, all should receive the invitation to believe
P2: Scripture teaches many die without having heard the Gospel
C1: Therefore, Christ’s death isn’t for everyone

Scriptures Owen uses to Defend His Argument

“for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” Romans 10:17

“In Judah was God known, and his name was great in Israel; in Salem was his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion,” Psalm 76:1-2

Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The Christian rapper Flame must not be your average rapper. I came across the lyrics of one of his songs. It is heavy with theology and is to be commended for being weighty. I suspect that his music must appeal to many younger people.

However, there are some basic problems with it in regard to the Calvinist-Arminian issue. Here are some of the words; a select few are chosen for discussion, as indicated in all-caps.

"who can pluck us?"

See what I'm about to mention some consider secondary
But never weary guarantee it's very necessary
When Jesus hit the wood and she'd His blood on the tree
He did something good He was atoning for me
AND ALL BELIEVERS WE SEE PETER WOULD CALL THE ELECT
And even Jesus said that His sheep could never be snatched
Out of His hands nor the Father cause He's greater than
All and they're one like a married woman and man
So listen up (listen up) I'm bout to make it plain
So you can hear me clearly and sincerely what I'm saying

But we also know that the Son of God is now here and has given us acuity so that we learn the truth and so that we are in the truth; in His Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. -MGV

The beginning of the verse differs from verses 18 and 19 with the addition of the conjunction 'de'. 'de' is most often translated 'but', and here I translate it as 'but also' to link it to the two proceeding verses. This indicates that this is the principle point that John has been building up to through 18 and 19. Using 'but' instead of 'therefore' shows that this thought doesn't flow out of the proceeding thoughts, but takes the context of the proceeding thoughts and goes far beyond it to something greater.

So let us look at this line of thought:

18. We know we are protected
19. We know that the world is dominated by evil
20. But we also know that Jesus is here now

John Goodwin's 531 page commentary on Romans 9 is the longest and most detailed account of Romans 9 I have read. I loved it. I will try to give a brief overview and highlight what I found to be some of his most insightful points. The structure of his work is as follows: a brief overview of the chapter to show how his view flows with the contours of the text, a detailed exposition of the text, a table of scriptures mentioned with some commentary on them, some general comments on interpretation, and some questions on answers on the broader implications of the text. The work also includes the "Banner of Justification", which explains justification in detail and it includes "Agreement and Distance of Brethren" which highlights the differences between Calvinists and Arminians.

Overview

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

Owen’s Argument 1:

P1: The new covenant saves only believers
P2: God only intended the elect to believe
C1: Therefore, God intended the new covenant for the elect

Owen fortifies P2 by this argument:

P3: God effectually gives the elect faith
P4: No one else can have faith without God’s effectually giving it
C2: therefore, God only intended the elect to believe.

(link)

Scriptures Owen uses to Defend His Argument

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

Owen's Argument

P1: the strict connection between Christ’s offering and His intercession gives assurance to those who believe Christ offered for them
P2: Arminians think Christ may offer for those whom He does not intercede.
C1: Under Arminian thinking, those who believe Christ offered Himself to the Father for them have no assurance.

Scripture supporting P1:

“Who is he that condemneth? “It is Christ that died,” (Romans 8:34)

(link)

Refutation

C. Michael Patton has written a couple of posts on the tendency of fellow Calvinists to treat Arminians in an unloving way. Here are some of the relevant posts:

Calvinists, Let's Calm Down (5-15-09)

Calvinists Often Make the Worst Calvinists(9-30-08)

Why Do I (A Calvinist) Go to An Arminian Church? (04-28-09)