DOCSLIB.ORG

Unlimited Atonement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unlimited Atonement Jeff Coleman Updated Jun 20 1 of 12 UNLIMITED ATONEMENT 1. Whether Jesus’ atonement is limited or unlimited is hotly disputed. a. Some verses suggest limited atonement. (1) Jn 10:14-15 14 I am the good shepherd, and I know my own and my own know me, 15 even as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. (2) Ac 20:28 28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock…, to shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood. (3) Eph 5:25 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Messiah also loved the church and gave himself up for her. b. Others suggest unlimited atonement. (1) Jn 3:16 16 God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (2) 1 Ti 2:4-6 4 [God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Messiah Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all. (3) 1 Jn 2:2 2 [Jesus] himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. c. How do we reconcile these apparently contradictory verses? (1) “The issue is well defined, and men of sincere loyalty to the Word of God and who possess true scholarship are found on both sides of the controversy. It is true that the doctrine of a limited redemption is one of the five points of Calvinism, but not all who are rightfully classified as Calvinists accept this one feature of that system. It is equally true that all Arminians are unlimited redemptionists, but to hold the doctrine of unlimited redemption does not necessarily constitute one an Arminian.”1 (2) Among Calvinists there are some who hold to unlimited atonement (so-called four-point Calvinists or Amyraldians, after Moses Amyraldus, d. 1664), and some who teach limited atonement (so-called ultra or five-point Calvinists).2 (3) Advocates of unlimited atonement include Moise Amyraut, Lewis S. Chafer, and Charles C. Ryrie. (4) Advocates of limited atonement include John Calvin, the Synod of Dort, John Owen, Louis Berkhof, and J. I. Packer. d. The question re-stated: (1) “Did the Father in sending Christ, …to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men? That is the question, and that only is the question.”3 (2) “Was the objective in Christ’s death one of making the salvation of all men possible, or was it the making of the salvation of the elect certain?”4 1 L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 3:183. 2 C. C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, 367-68. 3 L. Berkhof, quoted in C. C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, 367. 4 L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 3:194. www.firmfoundation.org.nz | mail@firmfoundation.org.nz | 027 557 9314 Conversational Evangelism | Inductive Bible Study | Expository Bible Teaching | Biblical Worldview Training Jeff Coleman Updated Jun 20 2 of 12 (3) What was finished at the cross? The payment of the sins of all, or the payment of sins of believers only? (a) Jn 19:30 30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, It is finished. And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. e. Unlimited and limited atonement advocates agree about: (1) Man’s total depravity. (2) Jesus’ substitutionary death as the only sufficient ground for a person to be saved. (3) Man’s inability to believe apart from the enabling power of the Spirit. (4) Not all people being saved. 2. Unlimited atonement defined. a. On the cross, Jesus paid the judicial penalty for every human sin, without exception. b. On this basis, justification is available to every human being through faith in Jesus. c. One gets the benefit of unlimited atonement only when one believes in Jesus. (1) Jesus died provisionally for all men, but the benefit is applied only when the condition of personal saving faith is met.5 (2) “The Atonement of Christ paid for the sins of the whole world, but the individual must appropriate that payment through faith.”6 d. The provision of atonement does not have to equal the application of atonement. (1) Justification is potential for everyone but actual only for believers. (2) Ro 3:24-26 24 [All believers] are justified by [God’s] grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Messiah Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood [unlimited provision], to be received by faith [limited application]. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. e. Not everyone is justified and going to heaven. f. The sin of unbelief is different in kind from all other sins. g. Jesus’ unlimited atonement does not extend to the sin of unbelief. (1) Unbelief in Jesus is the unforgivable sin. 3. Scriptural evidence for unlimited atonement. a. Scripture portrays the love of God in universal terms. (1) Lk 19:10 10 …The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. (a) All human beings are lost. (2) Jn 3:16-17 16 God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. (3) Jn 6:33 33 …The bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. 5 L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 3:188. 6 C. C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, 372-373. www.firmfoundation.org.nz | mail@firmfoundation.org.nz | 027 557 9314 Conversational Evangelism | Inductive Bible Study | Expository Bible Teaching | Biblical Worldview Training Jeff Coleman Updated Jun 20 3 of 12 (4) Jn 6:51 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. (5) 2 Co 15:18-19 18 All this is from God, who through Messiah reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. 19 That is, in Messiah God was reconciling the world (κόσµος) to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. (6) 1 Ti 2:4-6 4 [God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth [God’s desire to save all]. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and humanity, the man Messiah Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all [unlimited atonement], which is the testimony [general call] given at the proper time. (7) 1 Ti 4:10 10 To this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all people [potentially], especially [actually] of those who believe. (8) Tit 2:11 11 The grace of God has appeared, bringing [the possibility of] salvation for all people. (9) 1 Jn 4:10 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation (ἱλασµός) for our sins. b. Scripture portrays the death of Jesus in universal terms. (1) Is 53:5-6 5 [The Servant] was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. Upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned— every one—to his own way. And Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all [believers and unbelievers]. (2) Jn 1:29 29 The next day [John] saw Jesus coming toward him and said, Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (3) Ro 5:6-8 6 …While we were still weak, at the right time Messiah died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Messiah died for us. (4) Ro 5:15 15 If the many (οἱ πολλοὶ) died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for the many (τοὺς πολλοὺς). (5) 2 Co 5:14-15 14 The love of Messiah controls us because we have concluded this: that one has died for (ὑπέρ) all, therefore all have died. 15 And he died for (ὑπέρ) all, that those who live [believers] might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. (6) Col 1:19-20 19 It was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in [the Son], 20 and through him to reconcile all things (τὰ πάντα) to himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross, through him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven [the existence of the fallen universe and all angelic and human history].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Five Points of Calvinism
    • TULIP The Five Points of Calvinism instructor’s guide Bethlehem College & Seminary 720 13th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 612.455.3420 [email protected] | bcsmn.edu Copyright © 2007, 2012, 2017 by Bethlehem College & Seminary All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Scripture taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright © 2007 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. • TULIP The Five Points of Calvinism instructor’s guide Table of Contents Instructor’s Introduction Course Syllabus 1 Introduction from John Piper 3 Lesson 1 Introduction to the Doctrines of Grace 5 Lesson 2 Total Depravity 27 Lesson 3 Irresistible Grace 57 Lesson 4 Limited Atonement 85 Lesson 5 Unconditional Election 115 Lesson 6 Perseverance of the Saints 141 Appendices Appendix A Historical Information 173 Appendix B Testimonies from Church History 175 Appendix C Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism 183 Instructor’s Introduction It is our hope and prayer that God would be pleased to use this curriculum for his glory. Thus, the intention of this curriculum is to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ. This curriculum is guided by the vision and values of Bethlehem College & Seminary which are more fully explained at bcsmn.edu. At the Bethlehem College & Semianry website, you will find the God-centered philosophy that undergirds and motivates everything we do.
    [Show full text]
  • Objections to the Doctrine of Total Depravity
    Biblical Soteriology: An Overview and Defense of the Reformed Doctrines of Salvation by Ra McLaughlin Total Depravity, Part 4 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY 1. The most obvious objection to the doctrine of total depravity is the objection that man is not so sinful that God must condemn him. 2. Another objection to the doctrine of total depravity states that all men can savingly believe and trust the gospel, while a corollary objection asserts that man cannot savingly believe the gospel in and of himself, but that God graciously grants all men (or all men who hear the gospel) this ability, which man must then exercise by his own freewill in order to be saved. Under this second system, not all who have the God- given ability to believe actually exercise this ability in saving faith. Most versions of this view hold that all mankind has received this enabling gift. 3. Some objections to the doctrine of total depravity are based on experience. They insist that experience demonstrates that man may desire to be saved, to do good, and to please God prior to coming to saving faith. If any of these things are true, then total depravity is false. 4.. Most objections to total depravity also insist that a command by God to do something implies that the people of whom the thing is commanded possess a corresponding ability to do the thing commanded. That is, God would not command the impossible. Therefore, since God commands all men to exercise saving belief in the gospel, all men have the ability savingly to believe the gospel (whether from natural or graciously granted ability).
    [Show full text]
  • Calvinism and Limited Atonement Isaiah 53:6; Hebrews 2:9 and Others
    CALVINISM AND LIMITED ATONEMENT ISAIAH 53:6; HEBREWS 2:9 AND OTHERS Text: Isaiah 53:6; Hebrews 2:9 Isaiah 53:6 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Hebrews 2:9 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Introduction: Of the five points of Calvin’s philosophy, (and I call it "philosophy" instead of "theology" because in this particular point, it is 100% contrary to the revealed will of God as given to us in the Bible, therefore, it cannot properly be called "theology") the weakest link is his so-called false teaching on the "LIMITED ATONEMENT," or the "L" of the T.U.L.I.P. acronym of Calvinism. - 1 - It is interesting to me that this point is the center of this deadly flower. We will consider the Basic Definition, Blatant Distortion, and the Biblical Dispute, of Limited Atonement. 1. BASIC DEFINITION OF LIMITED ATONEMENT By “Limited Atonement” we refer to the belief which states that Christ did not die for “all or everyone” but rather died only for the elect. While it is true that only the saved benefit from Christ’s death on the cross, Christ died for all people. 1 John 2:1-2 1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Depravity
    TULIP: A FREE GRACE PERSPECTIVE PART 1: TOTAL DEPRAVITY ANTHONY B. BADGER Associate Professor of Bible and Theology Grace Evangelical School of Theology Lancaster, Pennsylvania I. INTRODUCTION The evolution of doctrine due to continued hybridization has pro- duced a myriad of theological persuasions. The only way to purify our- selves from the possible defects of such “theological genetics” is, first, to recognize that we have them and then, as much as possible, to set them aside and disassociate ourselves from the systems which have come to dominate our thinking. In other words, we should simply strive for truth and an objective understanding of biblical teaching. This series of articles is intended to do just that. We will carefully consider the truth claims of both Calvinists and Arminians and arrive at some conclusions that may not suit either.1 Our purpose here is not to defend a system, but to understand the truth. The conflicting “isms” in this study (Calvinism and Arminianism) are often considered “sacred cows” and, as a result, seem to be solidified and in need of defense. They have become impediments in the search for truth and “barriers to learn- ing.” Perhaps the emphatic dogmatism and defense of the paradoxical views of Calvinism and Arminianism have impeded the theological search for truth much more than we realize. Bauman reflects, I doubt that theology, as God sees it, entails unresolvable paradox. That is another way of saying that any theology that sees it [paradox] or includes it is mistaken. If God does not see theological endeavor as innately or irremediably paradoxical, 1 For this reason the author declines to be called a Calvinist, a moderate Calvinist, an Arminian, an Augustinian, a Thomist, a Pelagian, or a Semi- Pelagian.
    [Show full text]
  • Calvinism Vs Wesleyan Arminianism
    The Comparison of Calvinism and Wesleyan Arminianism by Carl L. Possehl Membership Class Resource B.S., Upper Iowa University, 1968 M.C.M., Olivet Nazarene University, 1991 Pastor, Plantation Wesleyan Church 10/95 Edition When we start to investigate the difference between Calvinism and Wesleyan Arminianism, the question must be asked: "For Whom Did Christ Die?" Many Christians answer the question with these Scriptures: (Failing, 1978, pp.1-3) JOH 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV) We believe that "whoever" means "any person, and ...that any person can believe, by the assisting Spirit of God." (Failing, 1978, pp.1-3) 1Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, (4) who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (NIV) 2PE 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (NIV) REV 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. (NIV) (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature and Extent of the Atonement in Lutheran
    THE N A T U R E A N D E X T E N T O F T H E ATONEMENT I N L U T H E R A N T H E O L O G Y DAVID SCAER, TH.D. I. The Problem The· conflict concerning the nature and extent of the atonement arose in Christian theology because of attempts to reconcile rationally apparently conflicting statements in the Holy Scriptures on the atone- ment and election. Briefly put, passages relating to the atonement are universal in scope including all men and those relating to election apply only to a limited number. Basically there have been three approaches to this tension between a universal atonement and a limited election. One approach is to understand the atonement in light of the election. Since obviously there are many who are not eventually saved, the atonement offered by Christ really applied not to them but only to those who are finally saved, i.e., the elect. This is the Calvinistic or Reformed view. The second approach understands the election in light of the atonement. This view credits each individual with the ability to make a choice of his own free will to believe in Christ. Since Christ died for all men and since man is responsible for his own damnation, therefore he at least cooperates with the Holy Spirit in coming to faith. This is the Arminian or synergistic view, also widely held in Methodism. The third view* is that of classical Lutheran theology. This position as set down in the Formula of Concord (1580) does not attempt to resolve what the Holy Scriptures state con- cerning atonement and election.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Aspects in the Design of Christ's Atonement
    Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2004): 85-98 Two Aspects in the Design of Christ’s Atonement Wayne S. Hansen Associate Professor of Theology Bethel Seminary of the East 1601 N. Limekiln Pike Dresher, Pennsylvania 19025 For well over three and a half centuries Christians have been divided over one aspect of Christ’s atonement. This topic has served to separate believer from believer, often with great animosity. The cleavage is so great that it has divided schools, denominational institutions, mission agencies, and local churches. Ironically, it has been labeled as a “non-essential” by at least one side in the debate. Yet the implications for this topic are significant for one’s approach to the church, evangelism, confidence in the sovereignty of God, and especially, Christology. The topic I am alluding to is limited atonement, to use its more recognized label. Some have preferred the term “definite atonement” or “particular redemption” to emphasize the positive focus of the doctrine and eliminate any suspicion of the value of Christ’s work. But whichever term is used the basic question remains. “Did God intend to save only the elect in the death of Christ or provide salvation for all?” Passionate defenses on each side of the issue have been offered. Frequently, tensions are so strong on this issue that one side does not hear what the other is saying. Each feels justified in her/his view and often refuses to look at the other’s argument. Not a few have stated that both are true and then dismissed the subject without seeing the inconsistency of their logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Depravity
    Here We Stand: Total Depravity INTRODUCTION Ø A brief review of the 5 Sola’s Ø Our objective over our remaining evenings together is to begin unpacking what is called in Reformed Theology, “The doctrines of grace”. We are going to devote one evening per each point to analyze what Scripture teaches concerning the nature of sin and the nature of God’s saving grace. 2 very important qualifiers to this study Ø #1 The division we are about to address within the Reformed church is not a division concerning the essentials of the Christian faith! Ø #2, although these doctrines are not essential to be a Christian, we believe they are essential to ascribe all the glory to God in salvation and that they grant the Christian the truest grounds for comfort and assurance. Arminianism’s First Point Ø “Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him.” Ø In other words, they believe that man possesses the “ability” to respond to the gospel in and of himself. Man is able to comply with the gospel command to “repent and believe” apart from God’s regenerating grace. Ø And here’s the implication… salvation or damnation, ultimately will be dependent on the sinner’s choice. Ø The Synod of Dort’s teaching could be summarized under this counter point… “Total Depravity”. This has also been referred to as Radical Corruption. Erasmus and Luther Ø In 1524 Desiderius Erasmus, a Renaissance humanist and Catholic priest, was considered in his time as the foremost opponent to challenge Martin Luther and his teachings on the nature of saving grace.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching the Scriptural Emphasis on the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Faculty Publications 2019 Teaching the Scriptural Emphasis on the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ John Hilton III Brigham Young University - Provo, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Mormon Studies Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Hilton, John III, "Teaching the Scriptural Emphasis on the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ" (2019). Faculty Publications. 3255. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/3255 This Peer-Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. This article was provided courtesy of the Religious Educator, a journal published by the Religious Studies Center at Brigham Young University Click here to subscribe and learn more The scriptures consistently emphasize the importance of the Savior’s CrucifixionintheAtonement. theimportance consistentlyemphasize The scriptures oftheSavior’s Harry Anderson, The Crucifixion. © Intellectual Reserve, Inc. Teaching the Scriptural Emphasis on the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ john hilton iii John Hilton III ([email protected]) is an associate professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University. colleague recently shared with me how, when teaching missionary A preparation classes, he would role-play with students. When students pretending to be missionaries would ask him (acting as an investigator) if he knew about Christ’s Atonement, he would say, “Yes, I saw that Mel Gibson movie about Christ dying for our sins on the cross.” At least half of his students would correct him, stating that Christ atoned for our sins in Gethsemane, but not on the cross.
    [Show full text]
  • Biblical and Logical Warrant for Limited Atonement
    M. Howell 1-10-04 Biblical and Logical Warrant for Definite Atonement He entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing eternal redemption. -Hebrews 9:12 The crux of the entire debate surrounding limited atonement is whether Christ is a real Savior or a potential Savior. Did Christ actually or potentially accomplish His purpose for dying for our sins? It is my position that Christ's death actually accomplished its purpose, that is, that it ensured the salvation of His people rather than merely provide the possibility of salvation for everyone who believes. This, therefore, makes Christ’s atonement limited in its efficaciousness. David Steele and Curtis Thomas write, “Christ’s saving work was limited in that it was designed to save some and not others, but it was not limited in value for it was of infinite worth and would have secured salvation for everyone if this had been God’s intention.”1 But as we shall soon see, regardless of your theological assumptions, the atonement is limited. That is why I prefer the term definite atonement to limited atonement. I shall be arguing for definite atonement in two parts, the first part consisting of the Biblical basis for definite atonement, and the second part consisting of the Logical basis for definite atonement. This separation should in no way imply that the Bible should or even could be divorced from logic. God is a God of logic and His special revelation is consequently inherently logical.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal
    FALL 2019 volume 6 issue 1 3 FROM RUTHERFORD HALL Dr. Barry J. York 4 FOUR CENTURIES AGO: AN HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE SYNOD OF DORT Dr. David G. Whitla 16 THE FIRST HEADING: DIVINE ELECTION AND REPROBATION Rev. Thomas G. Reid, Jr. 25 THE SECOND HEADING - CHRIST’S DEATH AND HUMAN REDEMPTION THROUGH IT: LIMITED ATONEMENT AT THE SYNOD OF DORDT AND SOME CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGICAL DEBATES Dr. Richard C. Gamble 33 THE THIRD HEADING: HUMAN CORRUPTION Rev. Keith A. Evans 39 THE FOURTH HEADING: “BOTH DELIGHTFUL AND POWERFUL” THE DOCTRINE OF IRRESISTIBLE GRACE IN THE CANONS OF DORT Dr. C. J. Williams 47 THE FIFTH HEADING: THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS Dr. Barry J. York STUDY UNDER PASTORS The theological journal of the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary Description Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal is the online theological journal of the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal is provided freely by RPTS faculty and other scholars to encourage the theological growth of the church in the historic, creedal, Reformed faith. Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal is published biannually online at the RPTS website in html and pdf. Readers are free to use the journal and circulate articles in written, visual, or digital form, but we respectfully request that the content be unaltered and the source be acknowledged by the following statement. “Used by permission. Article first appeared in Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal, the online theological journal of the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary (rpts.edu).” e d i t o r s General Editor: Senior Editor: Assistant Editor: Contributing Editors: Barry York Richard Gamble Jay Dharan Tom Reid [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] C.
    [Show full text]
  • Calvinism and Arminianism Are Tw
    K-Group week 3 Question: "Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct?" Answer: Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility in the matter of salvation. Calvinism is named for John Calvin, a French theologian who lived from 1509-1564. Arminianism is named for Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who lived from 1560-1609. Both systems can be summarized with five points. Calvinism holds to the total depravity of man while Arminianism holds to partial depravity. Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity states that every aspect of humanity is corrupted by sin; therefore, human beings are unable to come to God on their own accord. Partial depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that human beings are unable to place faith in God of their own accord. Note: classical Arminianism rejects “partial depravity” and holds a view very close to Calvinistic “total depravity” (although the extent and meaning of that depravity are debated in Arminian circles). In general, Arminians believe there is an “intermediate” state between total depravity and salvation. In this state, made possible by prevenient grace, the sinner is being drawn to Christ and has the God-given ability to choose salvation. Calvinism includes the belief that election is unconditional, while Arminianism believes in conditional election. Unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will, not on anything inherently worthy in the individual. Conditional election states that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation, thereby on the condition that the individual chooses God.
    [Show full text]