Whosoever or Whosover will

 

In the middle of an interesting discussion with whoever runs the Arminian Society twitter account. Assuming that they do not remove their tweets, you can follow the ongoing debate here. It all revolves round this article which basically accuses the Calvinist of bad faith in making the free offer of the gospel. Or to be more correct, it accuses the Calvinist of having God act in bad faith, which is even worse again. This bad faith idea is done under the illustration of someone being offered a bad cheque.  Some thoughts on this still developing debate:

1) The article seems to accept that Calvinists do present the free offer of the gospel. At least, that is good. 

2) From the Arminian point of view, the debate (in order to survive) needs to go into the very wide field of hypothetical thinking. IOW if facts get in your way, then create your own needed fantasy world to try and push through your objection. No wonder it is my contention that #Calvinism is ultimately safe and that all attacks upon it when it is presented properly in its classic i.e. Biblical manner will wallow in their own failure. 

3)  This fantasy world grew bigger with the debate. The implication in one tweet was that God  "made sure the people we offer it to won't try to cash it" i.e. the cheque. This is not the Calvinism of the real world where no violence is offered to the will of the creature, but the fantasy Calvinism of the tweeter for the Arminian Society. FTR: Calvinism teaches that the sinner damns his own soul without Divine help.   

4) Lets go back to the debate when it first started off and before the fantasy stuff began to take over. It seems to me that we need to establish who actually is offered the said illustrative cheque and on what basis he has the right to cash it and expect payment. 

Salvation (which I understand to be the riches offered on the cheque) is not offered to "whosoever" but (and here is the crucial difference) to the "whosoever will". This does not mean that we go down the Hyper Calvinist route, which I totally reject as seen here:

* Hyper Calvinism cartoon answered
* Hyper Calvinist attack on Gospel Meetings answered
* Chart showing how balanced Calvinism cf. Arminianism/Hyper Calvinism  

... i.e. of only preaching the gospel to a select few, whom we in our arrogance think just may be elect. No, we preach indiscriminately (say) to all who gather in our church services or who pass by our open air meetings in the public street. But what do we offer? What is on the cheque? 

Suppose it is "whosoever" shall be saved, then who will actually be saved? Everyone! The phrase itself if left to itself cannot be limited and you basically end up with Universalism.  You do so grammatically and unless you change or somehow limit the word, you will end up with Universalism theologically. 

OTOH: The Bible declares that salvation is for a smaller group. The "Whosoever will" crowd, although a great multitude which no man can number, is actually smaller than the 'whosoever' crowd, because it omits the "whosoever wont" brigade. Do you see the great difference? 

In Revelation 22:17 it is the "whosoever will" who are invited to come and drink freely of the water of life. If someone is not willing to come - credited (or is it debited?) in John 3:19 as loving darkness rather than light - then there is no water of life for them. God does not give such to the unbelieving who are condemned already (John 3:18) and abide under His righteous wrath (John 3:36). They must become believers in order to partake of the water of life. 

In John 3:15/16 it is the "whosoever believeth" who can cash the cheque (to use the Arminian's chosen illustration) but not the "whosoever believeth not." 

 In Romans 10:13, it is the "whosoever calleth" who can cash the cheque, but not the "whosoever calleth not".

There is no bad faith here on God's part. The bad faith would be on the sinner's side for seeking to present a cheque that he had no right to have, never mind present. If I went to a bank with a cheque which I found on the street and written to some one else, and tried to pass myself off as that person and therefore entitled to the money, I would be guilty of fraud. The police could be called and, if justice ran its course, I would be judicially punished for my crime. 

The Calvinist offers salvation for the whoseover will/calleth/believeth. His terms of salvation are exactly the same as that of the Arminian and therefore if the one is guilty of bad faith, then the other is also. 

Perhaps this debate will rumble on a bit more. I felt I had to take to my blog here (which I set up in the wake of my twitter account) as less than 140 characters per tweet can often prove inadequate. 

Just a few thoughts from a happy Calvinist preaching salvation to the whosoever will in good faith.

#Shalom

Added note: The debate is now over. Obviously warming to the idea of creating a fantasy world, the Arminian Society tweeter sought to have Calvinism teach that God caused sin. I thought it best to leave him or her to their chosen delusion on this matter and get back into the mainstream once again. FTR: I don't believe that all Arminians go down this route and therefore refrain from blaming all who hold that system of thought.

INDEXES:

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

chart

I hope this chart proves helpful to some. Saves getting confused between Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism. See also this earlier post.

DOCTRINE	UNBALANCED ARMINIANISM	BALANCED CALVINISM	UNBALANCED HYPER CALVINISM
Man's responsibility	Rightly emphasise it but believe it implies man's ability. (See below)	Believe that man is absolutely responsible for his actions while God is absolutely sovereign.	Deny man's responsibility in a vain effort to protect the doctrine of man's depravity. Effectively reduces man to being a block of wood.
God's Sovereignty	Believe it in regards to creation and providence etc., but effectively deny it in the most important matter of all i.e. salvation.	Believe this truth holds in every situation. "All my ways shall ever be, ordered by His wise decree"	Hold to this doctrine but over emphasise it to the exclusion of man's responsibility.
Man's depravity	Deny this doctrine believing that all men have been given the ability to repent and believe the gospel.	Believe that while all men are required to repent etc., SIN has robbed them of the power to do so.	Hold to this doctrine but over emphasise it to the exclusion of man's responsibility.
Election	Make it conditional upon faith. Effectively self election rather than "God's election"	Place it where it belongs - in the hand of God. Unconditional so as to put God under no obligation.	Hold to this doctrine but over emphasise it to the exclusion of man's responsibility.
Extent of the Atonement	Believe that it extends to every last son of Adam, including those who eternally in hell when Jesus died.	Believe that although sufficient for all men in its merit, yet intended to redeem only the elect.	Afraid to preach the universal aspect of the atonement (Compare the Calvinist belief) lest they be considered Arminian.
Effect of the Atonement	Largely ineffectual since many ofthose for whom Christ is said to have died are bearing those same sinsin Hell for which He is said to have died.	Totally effectual since every last one for whom Christ died will be gathered in, thus making His feeling of satisfaction (Isaiah 53:10) credible.	There does not seem to be any imbalance here on this particular point.
Preaching of the Atonement	Although sound in preaching the free offer of the gospel, their theology of atonement is inherently compromised - see previous box.	Preach the free offer of the gospel, assuring every last man (elect or not) that if they come to the Cross, they will find pardon.	Will only preach it as a fact. As above, will not offer it. Believe that the free offer implies creature power. Which it doesn't.
Effectual grace	Believe that the grace of God can always be resisted by the sinner.	Believe that the elect and non elect alike can resist the grace of God, but there comes a time when the elect find it irresistible.	Too much emphasise on this doctrine leaves them in a state of practical fatalism.
Perseverance of the Saints	Rank Arminians believe that true Christians can lose their salvation. Others who disbelieve the first 4 points of Calvinism, effectively believe the last.	The elect will persevere in holiness unto the end and so will be saved, being kept by the power of God through faith.	Although they believe this doctrine in theory, yet their over emphasise on other points leaves them constantly in a state of gloomy doubt.
Evangelism	Believe it in although their basic message is compromised and they have no absolute assurance of the success of their mission.	Believe in it - can offer a Saviour who actually accomplished something at Calvary - as opposed to merely making it possible - and have absolute guarantee by divine decree that their mission will be successful.	Hardly believe in evangelism at all. At best will but state the gospel facts, but will not plead with men to be saved as the great Calvinist evangelists did in the past.
Holiness	Holiness is to be found among all schools of God's people, often despite their doctrine.	Holiness is to be found among all schools of God's people, often despite their doctrine.	Holiness is to be found among all schools of God's people, often despite their doctrine. Unfortunately there are those in the Hyper camp who believe that if you are going to be saved, then you will be saved no matter how you live. Such Antinomianism is to be abhorred and separated from.

                      
 
Note: I recently received a tweet from a professing Arminian friend who denies this my claim that Arminians deny Total Depravity. When asked to supply a suitable brief replacement text, he sent  this:


 "Humans are entirely sinful and corrupt and unable to make any move toward salvation without God's enabling grace." 

I therefore decided to remove the charge. Always and only interested in stating facts.

 

THE END

ALL INDEXES:

* PROTESTANT INDEX 
* CALVINISM INDEX 
* CH SPURGEON INDEX  
* EVANGELISM INDEX  
* HERE AND THERE INDEX

book2

Reviewed for the British Church Newspaper. 

 Title of the Book: The Glory of Grace – The Story of the Canons of Dort
Author: William Boekstein
Publisher: Reformation Heritage Books
Publisher's address or where the book may be obtained: 2965 Leonard Street, NE Grand Rapids, MI 49525
Year of publication: 2012 
Number of pages: 32 
Hardback or paperback: Hard 
Price: $7.50  
ISBN: 978-1-60178-191-8

 

This is published as a children’s book. One imagines that the author had young teenagers in mind as it is at once both a historical book and (as suggested by the title) a doctrinal one. It deals with the great controversy at the Synod of Dort in Holland in 1619 when the followers of Jacob Arminius officially challenged the hitherto accepted Calvinist interpretation of the Bible. In their five points of protest, the Arminians effectively sought to water down some important NT doctrines which affected the sovereignty of God. It gives the “warts and all” approach to the Synod which became quite an angry affair with raised voices etc. Part of the problem lay in the fact that the Arminian Remonstrants went against their oath (binding on all) to use “no human writing, but only the word of God, which is an infallible word of faith.” They tried to challenge the Reformed Confessions and refused to answer questions concerning their own views. Eventually, they were dismissed, and any voting was unanimous in favour of the canons. The articulating of the famous “Five Points of Calvinism” flow from this Synod. Afterwards, Arminian gatherings in Holland were banished by law and many Arminians were dismissed from their teaching posts, although some restated later on.

The book itself is well produced with plenty of nice illustrations and yet sufficient text. It gives a very succinct statement on each of the Five points and preserves, under its “Unconditional Election” heading, the wonderful truth that the gospel is to preached to every person without exception, referring to John 3:16. One criticism must be that Mr Boekstein omits to mention the teaching that man is responsible for his own sin and therefore unbelief and impenitence is the sole cause of his damnation.  It would have been good to have clearly stated this and so silenced the mouth of any gainsayers. The book notes the recovery of the Doctrines of Grace as more and more people “are coming to agree that this faith most greatly glorifies God and most greatly comforts believers.” It certainly encourages the reader of whatever age to be more acquainted with the Canons of Dort which are a magnificent statement of warm, Evangelistic Calvinism. Perhaps it was because of this that the godly Bishop Hall, notwithstanding the rancour, described the Synod as “no place on the earth so like the Synod of Dort.”

THE END

ALL INDEXES:

* PROTESTANT INDEX 
* CALVINISM INDEX 
* CH SPURGEON INDEX  
* EVANGELISM INDEX  
* HERE AND THERE INDEX