Arminian Today

In Exodus 3:18-22 we read what Yahweh tells Moses concerning Pharaoh and the plunder of the Egyptians.  God tells that Moses that He is going to set His people free from the bondage under the Egyptians (vv. 7-8).  He then tells Moses in verse 18 to go and tell Pharaoh that the Jews were to go into the wilderness to sacrifice to the LORD yet Yahweh tells Moses in verse 19 that He knows that Pharaoh will not let them go unless compelled by a mighty hand and so in verse 20 Yahweh tells Moses that He will strike Egypt with wonders and then Pharaoh will let them go.  God even promises in verses 21-22 that He will give the Jews favor with the Egyptians so that the Jews will plunder them.

Anyone who knows the book of Exodus and the history of the Israelites knows that all this comes to pass.  Moses goes before Pharaoh and sure to God’s word, Pharaoh denies that the Israelites can go free.  God does wonders that amazes both the Egyptians and the Israelites and finally, after the striking down of the first-born in all of Egypt, Pharaoh calls Moses to him and tells him to leave (Exodus 12:31-32).  The Israelites even plunder the Egyptians as God promised (Exodus 12:36).

What amazes me about Exodus 3:18-22 is that Yahweh clearly foresees all the free will decisions that will come to pass.  In His complete omniscience He knows what Pharaoh will do and say and even what the Egyptians will do for the Israelites after God’s judgment upon them.  Romans 9:14-18 gives us insight into God’s choosing of Pharaoh for His own purpose.  Romans 9:14-18 is not salvation in nature.  The point of Romans 9:14-18 is that God is sovereign to choose whomever He desires for His own purpose without saving them in the process.  Pharaoh could have been saved if he had repented of his sins but he continued in his unbelief and hardened his heart toward Yahweh.  The parallel between John 15:16 and Romans 9:17 are similar.  Jesus’ choice of His Apostles in John 15:16 was to service and not entirely to salvation (as the case of Judas shows).  This is true of Pharaoh as well.  He was chosen by God for God’s own purpose: to show His glory and wonders to the Israelites.

What is amazing though is that God knows the free will choices that Pharaoh and the Egyptians would make.  God does not force these decisions but He knows them just as He knows your thoughts before you even utter them (Psalm 139:4).  Jesus knew the thoughts of many in the Gospels.  In Mark 2:8 we read that Jesus perceived the thoughts of the people questioning His words in their hearts.  In John 2:25 we read that Jesus knew what was in man.  In John 6:64 Jesus even knew who did not believe about the disciples spoken of in verse 66 and about Judas (verse 71).  On a side note, Adam Clarke makes the point that could it be that Jesus was reaching out to Judas trying to call him to repent of his wickedness beforehand?  I know this is speculation on Clarke’s part but I do see the love of Jesus even for a Judas.

I write all this because some accuse us Arminians of rejecting the omniscience of God.  They believe that we hold to open theism, that God does not know all future actions of free will creatures.  I certainly reject this notion.  I believe from passages such as Exodus 3:18-22 that God does indeed know all things.  He knows even the free will decision of people.  He foreknows even those who will believe the gospel of Christ (Romans 8:29).  While this knowledge is not unconditional in that salvation is based on conditions that God has set including belief, He does know those who will believe.  This mystery is beyond me.  I cannot fathom knowing all things including decisions others are going to make.  God does.  God knows all things.  He foreknows all events.  He has chosen in His sovereignty to allow for free will from His creatures so that none can accuse Him of evil and say on the day of judgment that they were only doing what God had caused them to do.  Calvinists believe that God renders certain whatsoever comes to pass including sin.  How does this not make God the author of sin?  If God is going to render certain all things that come to pass then this means that He causes them to come to pass.  In essence, this makes God the one who caused the event (even sinful) to be rendered certain.

The Arminian view is that God simply knows.  That is it.  God knew the free will actions of Pharaoh and the Egyptians before it happened because He knows.  God knew when you would believe.  God knew that I would write this post.  That God knows is not the same as God caused.  God foreknows all things including the free will decisions of people.  He controls all things but He does not cause all things.  He knew the free will actions that would be taken toward His Son (Isaiah 53:4-6) but He allowed those free will choices to be made and for Jesus’ death to come to pass (Acts 2:23 notice that Peter says that those Jews were guilty of Jesus’ death through the hands of lawless men).  God allowed people to make free will choices to crucify His Son but He knew those choices would be made even if He didn’t make that choice for them.

There are some who take comfort in a fatalistic view of God’s omniscience.  I have even known some who would abide in sin believing that God knew and rendered certain their sin so why fight it?  I have seen some find comfort in their struggles of life by believing that God caused their troubles to come upon them by His own sovereign choice.  I have seen women mourn over their dead baby only to bless God for killing the child.  They find comfort that God causes all things to come to pass even if they don’t understand God’s ways.  They read the book of Job and see the hand of God crushing Job as proof that we should expect the same in this life.

I don’t know.  I don’t find much comfort in that thought.  I do believe that God is sovereign.  I do believe that God foreknows all things.  I do believe that God controls all things.  I reject that God causes all things.  Did God cause Adam to sin?  Did God cause Judas to betray Jesus?  Did God cause Hitler to murder over 6 million Jews?  Did God cause the rapist to rape a little girl?  What kind of God is this?  Despite the picture that Scripture presents of Him being loving and good, I would find this fatalistic view of God as appalling.

I am not sure if either Arminianism or Calvinism has the answer to the problem of evil.  The Calvinist views the sovereignty of God as meaning that He must cause all things to come to pass for His glory even the hardening of sinner’s hearts.  The Arminian views the sovereignty of God as God allowing free will decisions to be made that He does know but does not cause.  The open theist view is that God allows the future to partly open so that free will decisions are completely unknown to Him before they take place in time and then God reacts to those free will decisions.  I believe that all three may have problems but I accept the Arminian view as I believe from cases such as Exodus 3:18-22 that God does know all things including the future free will choices that others will make and He is able to make prophetic statements in that regard.

John 1:12-13 are often cited together as proof texts for unconditional election.  John 1:12-13 says, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”  Calvinists believe that the verse clearly shows based on John 1:13 that the act of salvation is completely God and that includes our unconditional election.

Does John 1:12-13 really teach this?  First of all let me state that Arminians do hold that salvation is a work of God.  Despite claims to the otherwise, we are not synergistic in our salvation approach.  We agree that salvation is a work of God that He does in a person and this is not accomplished by our human efforts whatsoever.  I was listening to a song the other day and while the song was good for the most part, one line of the song says that if we take one step into the light we will find that God will run to us.  This is not salvation as taught in the Bible.  Salvation is a work of God that He begins from beginning to end.  It is all of God and not of flesh.  No doubt we are to believe the gospel but without the aid of the Spirit, who could believe (Romans 3:10-18)?

But notice that the regeneration of the new birth that John 1:13 speaks of is predicated upon John 1:12 and believing in Jesus.  When we believe in Jesus (though the grace of God and the work of the Spirit), we are saved.  At that moment, we are born again (John 3:3-7).  This work of regeneration is a work of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5-7) and is based on the sinner hearing the gospel, having faith in Jesus Christ, and repenting of their sins (Acts 2:38-39).  John 1:13 then is not teaching unconditional election in the Calvinist sense where the person must be regenerated to believe the gospel (justification unto faith) but rather John 1:13 points back to John 1:12 and reminds us that regeneration is a work of God that He bestows on those who believe in Jesus.  Bear in mind that this is the purpose of John’s Gospel, to point his readers to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29; 20:31).

The Arminian viewpoint of John 1:12-13 would thus be:

Belief = Regeneration

The Calvinist viewpoint would be:

Regeneration = Belief

But John 1:12-13 doesn’t say this.  John 1:12-13 doesn’t say that regeneration comes before belief.  John 1:12 says that those who received Jesus, God gave the right (or power or authority) to become children of God.  Faith in Jesus opened the door for our salvation which is by God’s grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9) and is a work of God (John 1:13).

I was browsing a Calvinist blog that I enjoy reading and the Calvinist brother stated that based on 1 John 2:19 it is clear that those who do not persevere are not truly saved no matter what evidences we might try to cite.  I have blogged on the misuse of 1 John 2:19 before but the problem I have with the Calvinistic interpretation of 1 John 2:19 is that it offers no assurance for our salvation.  The Calvinist is told that they are eternally secure and that nothing can separate them from the love of Christ (Romans 8:37-39).  They are told that they are Jesus’ sheep forever (John 10:27-29).  They are told that the One who has begun a good work in them will be faithful to complete it (Philippians 1:6).  They are told that no sin can ever bring division between them and their Savior who saved them completely from their sins (Hebrews 7:25; 10:10).  Yet if they turn back, they were never saved to begin with no matter what.

How confusing that must be.  The Arminian rejoices in the above passages of Scripture but we also equally emphasize that there are many warning passages that call God’s people to persevere and to hate sin and to despise their flesh (Romans 6:12-14; 11:20-22; Galatians 6:7-9; Hebrews 6:4-20; 10:19-39; 1 John 2:15-17).  The Arminian can rejoice that God is indeed faithful to keep His promises but we must also be aware of God’s holiness and His hatred for sin and not disobey Him (Hebrews 3:6-19).  We remain secure in Jesus Christ by faith (2 Corinthians 1:24).

But the question becomes, “Is there no future assurance of our salvation?”  The Calvinist would say that we are eternally secure but if the person begins to live in sin, they were never saved to begin with.  The current Calvinist hears this and must think to themselves, “I can never sin again or I might not be saved to begin with.”  The Arminian hears that we are eternally secure if we remain in Jesus Christ by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Peter 1:10-11) and that true grace motivates us toward holiness (Titus 2:11-12) and not toward sinning.  The Arminian, in my estimation, has better scriptural standing in their view of salvation.  The Calvinist can’t be sure that they will be saved because it is possible that right now they are not saved.  They might be a false convert based on their view of 1 John 2:19.  The Arminian, on the other hand, can rejoice that we are currently saved by faith in Jesus and will be eternally so provided we continue in faith (1 Corinthians 15:1-2; Colossians 1:21-23).

So to answer the question of whether we have future assurance: Yes we do in Jesus!  Jesus is our shield and our protection.  Jesus is our refuge (Proverbs 18:10).  Jesus is the one who protects us through faith (1 Peter 1:5).  As long as we remain in Jesus (Romans 5:1) by faith, we have the assurance that we are saved.  We need not doubt if we are in Jesus Christ.

Twice over the past several days of looking at various blogs have I noticed the phrase “Finneyism” inserted when discussing the problems of the evangelical church.  One Calvinist blogger stated that he was watching evangelical evangelist Greg Laurie and that Laurie was very “Finney-Arminian oriented in his approach to reaching the lost.”  For some Calvinist, I guess they know what he means by this.  For us reformed Arminians, we do not.  At least I don’t.  I will take a guess at what he (and others) mean by the phrase.

Let me first set aside these folks assumptions about Arminianism and state what we Arminians truly believe about evangelism and about salvation in general.

1.  Salvation is a work of the Lord.  Jonah 2:9 makes this clear.  Romans 8:29-30 also makes this clear.  Salvation is a gift from God that He bestows on the one whom He draws unto Himself through His Spirit and through the preaching of the Word of God (John 6:44; Romans 10:14-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).  God foreknows those who will believe (Romans 8:29; 1 Peter 1:2).

2.  Evangelism must be in the power of the Holy Spirit.  Jesus promised His disciples that they would receive the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8) to make disciples for His glory (Matthew 28:19-20).  Evangelism is then not us doing the work of God for Him but joining in the great work of God as He reaches out to souls.  We are working with God for souls that He sovereignly saves for His glory.  We do not have to force people to repent or manipulate them through worldly or humans means but we must preach the gospel and leave the results up to God (1 Corinthians 3:5-9).

3.  We do not have to use pragmatic means to see people saved.  What we need to do is trust in the Lord to save souls as we proclaim His Son.  God will open hearts to the gospel (Acts 16:14-15) as we faithfully proclaim the truths of the gospel.  Our duty before God is to be faithful (2 Timothy 4:5).

Now let’s jump to what the Calvinist stated about Finneyism.  I am going to try to decipher what he (and others) mean by the term.  First of all, I assume that they mean by this the worldly means to draw sinners.  Oddly, Charles Finney preached and this drew crowds.  We can debate his message but his method is pretty similar to most evangelicals today and I assume that is what they loath.  I would agree.  Church has now become the place where we hold “evangelistic meetings” whereas I see the duty of the Church to take the gospel into the world (Mark 16:15).  The Church is a anywhere that born again people meet to fellowship with one another in the Spirit (Hebrews 3:13; 10:24-25).  I don’t see, in the Scriptures, that the Church meetings are to be for the lost.  The Church in Acts went out in the Spirit to preach the gospel.  In fact, all preaching in the Book of Acts is to the lost unless you count Paul’s speech in Acts 20:7 (which I do not).

Secondly, I assume by the term Finneyism that they are loathing the general call to all to be saved.  This would seem odd as even Calvinists acknowledge that the gospel appeal should be made to all.  Charles Spurgeon gladly stated that his favorite verse of the Bible was John 6:37 where Jesus stated, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”  Spurgeon preached from this text that the gospel appeal should be made to all as Iain Murray points out in his excellent book, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism.  While Spurgeon avoided the creation of the “anxious seat” from Charles Finney, they oddly had much in common in their preaching styles and messages.  Both called all to repent.  I do as well (Acts 17:30-31).  I don’t know who the elect of God are so I call all to come to Jesus and be saved.  Those who come to Jesus are the elect of God (1 Peter 1:2; Revelation 17:14).  I believe the words of Jesus in John 6:37 like Spurgeon did in his day and I preach that Jesus will save those who come to Him for salvation (Romans 10:13).  The call of Acts 2:38 is for all in Acts 2:39.

Thirdly, I assume that they are loathing the modern evangelical usage of the “sinner’s prayer” as a means to salvation.  I agree.  I find no biblical basis for the sinner’s prayer.  None.  Sinner’s pray but I find nothing in the Book of Acts that even closely comes to altar calls.  Water baptism was the normal response in Acts to the gospel as Jesus had stated in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16.  On the day of Pentecost, Peter called his hearers to repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).  Acts 8:12; 36-38; 9:18; 10:48; 16:14-15, 30-34; 18:8; 22:16 – all these verses mention baptism with those who respond to the gospel message.  Baptism is pointless, however, apart from Jesus Christ (Romans 6:1-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21-22).  For a study of baptism you could read Jack Cottrell’s Baptism: A Biblical Study or Thomas Schreiner’s book Believer’s Baptism.  

Yet I am dumbfounded as to how Arminianism often gets associated with Charles Finney.  Finney was not an Arminian.  He never claimed to be.  He was saved in a Reformed church and wrestled with Calvinism from the Presbyterian pastor who taught him.  Finney adopted his own views regarding salvation and sin and was more Pelagian then he was Arminian.  No where in his Systematic Theology does he state that he was an Arminian in his theology.  Some Calvinists acknowledge that Finney was not an Arminian but most do not.  John MacArthur, for example, in his otherwise excellent book Ashamed of the Gospel, states in the appendix that Finney was an Arminian without any basis.  This is an assumption and a false one.  Yet Calvinist readers will read MacArthur and agree that Finney was an Arminian.

If you want to study an Arminian evangelist then study John Wesley and his theology.  Avoid Charles Finney as an example of Arminianism.  This he was not and did not claim to be.  Arminius would have disagreed with Finney over his rejection of total depravity and over the limitations of free will because of the Fall (Genesis 3:1-8).  Arminius was clearly in the line of the reformers and agreed with Martin Luther  that the will was in bondage to sin and apart from the grace of God and the work of Christ, no person could be saved.