Charge: Arminianism cheapens Grace
Calvinist Complaints: Arminianism cheapens Grace
This is a dispute over the extent of the atonement at Calvary. Does Jesus save people unilaterally? Or instead, is Jesus a potential Savior, that is, conditionally only for those who believe in Him?
Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, explains the Arminian view of the Atonement: “Historic Arminianism embraces particularism: not all people are saved, only a particular number of them. That particular group of people who are saved are those who respond to the offer of the gospel with faith. Only those who believe appropriate the benefits of the saving atonement in Christ.” (What is Reformed Theology, p.165)
Calvinist, Loraine Boettner, explains: “The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons...while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across. (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p.153, emphasis mine)
Calvinists caution Arminians from finger-pointing on the matter of a Limited Atonement since both sides limit the Atonement of Christ’s grace at Calvary, to one degree or another. Some, namely the Calvinists, limit its scope, while Arminians, limit its effect. In other words, 5-Point Calvinists teach that the Atonement paid for the sins of the eternal flock of the Father, and in time, those of the eternal flock of the Father come to realize this fact when they are regenerated at the foreordained time and irresistibly believe. Calvinists charge Arminians that they cheapen grace when they say that it can be resisted, or that it requires the voluntarily free-will of man to accept it:
Calvinist, James White, writes: “The evangelical who thinks he is honoring the atonement by making it universal in scope needs to realize the cost of his position. If Christ died in the place of every man and woman in all history (universal scope and intention), the atonement must be limited in its power and efficacy, for it does not actually result in the salvation of many of those God intended it to save.” (Debating Calvinism, p.171, emphasis mine)
Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer, writes: “Whitefield called the doctrine of universal atonement, as taught by Arminians, blasphemy and the ‘highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of God and the merit of his blood.’” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.184, emphasis mine)
Lutzer continues: “Luther saw this as a cheapening of grace. Even admitting that man can merit grace by exercising freedom of choice diminishes the grace of God.” (The Doctrines That Divide, pp.165-166, emphasis mine)
Lutzer writes: “The phrase ‘limited atonement’ is unfortunate since it gives the impression that Christ’s death was not as effective as generally believed. But actually, those who believe in this doctrine of ‘particular redemption’ or ‘definite atonement’ as it is better called, affirm that it is the Arminians that limit the value of the cross.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.185, emphasis mine)
Lutzer explains 5-Point Calvinistic Atonement: “If it is true that Christ died to redeem a specific number of people, namely those whom the Father had given him, it follows that all believers were redeemed at the cross two thousand years ago. They were cleared of all charges then, for God accepted the ransom payment. The certificate of our canceled debt was then given to us when we trusted in Christ. Paul said that the reason no one can bring a charge against the elect is that Christ has died for them (Rom. 8:24).” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.185, emphasis mine)
Speaking of Arminians, Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon, writes: “The say, ‘No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if’--and then follow certain conditions of salvation.” (Particular Redemption, emphasis mine)
However, according to John 3:16, the “conditions” is actually just one condition, and that is “whoever believes in Him”? Nevertheless, Calvinists charge that grace is cheapened through diminished efficacy if it is not directly applied to the account of “the elect” before, and independent from, faith in Him.
John Calvin comments on Romans 5:15: “Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive Him.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, pp.117-118, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: “That Christ, the redeemer of the whole world, commands the Gospel to be preached promiscuously to all does not seem congruent with special Election. ... But the solution of the difficulty lies in seeing how the doctrine of the Gospel offers salvation to all. That it is salvific for all I do not deny. But the question is whether the Lord in His counsel here destines salvation equally for all.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.102, 103, emphasis mine)
Hebrews 2:3 states: “How will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?”
Logically speaking, how can you neglect something that you’ve been denied? Jesus had to have died for everyone in order for anyone to have something to neglect. Furthermore, you cannot legitimately offer salvation to anyone unless salvation was procured for everyone. Otherwise, what exactly would you be indiscriminately offering? Again, for the offer of salvation to be valid, Jesus had to have died for everyone. That’s the reality of it, which merely confirms what we already know from John 3:14 and Numbers 21:6-9.
Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, asks: “What would have happened to the work of Christ if nobody believed in it? That had to be a theoretical possibility. In this case Christ would have died in vain.” (What is Reformed Theology, p.167, emphasis mine)
Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, asks: “If God planned to redeem all men, did his plan fail?” (What is Reformed Theology, p.168, emphasis mine)
If God had wanted, He could have simply removed the condition of John 3:16 and the result would be that everyone is saved, regardless of what they do with His Son, which is also called Universalism. Furthermore, if God had wanted, He could save everyone by their own free will, simply by using force. In the case of Jonah, God used force in order to motivate Jonah to do His will, and preach to Ninevah. All that is needed is a certain amount of force, over a certain amount of time, with certain types of trials, and everyone, by their own free will would submit to God. Even the condemned “rich man” of Luke 16:19-31 was ready to return to Earth and serve the Lord as an evangelist, by his own free will. But it was too late. God has stated what He wants at John 3:16, and offers eternal life, conditionally. Every knee shall bow. God lets us decide whether it will be from Heaven or Hell.
Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer, warns of Double Jeopardy: “If this was a payment for the sins of the whole world, then the unbelief of the ungodly was also included in the sacrifice. No one should be expected to pay for his sins in hell. If the treachery of Judas was included in Christ’s ransom, which the Father accepted, why should he be required to suffer for his sins?” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.184, emphasis mine)
Lutzer offers an analogy: “Suppose I were to owe you a thousand dollars but was unable to pay my debt. But a kind friend intervenes and pays you what I owe. But you still elicit a payment from me, asking that I pay ever last cent. Would that be just? I think not. If my friend paid my debt, justice requires that I be free. The analogy is clear: if Christ’s sacrifice was for all men, then either all men will be saved or God will be unfairly demanding from sinners what has already been paid. If Christ died for people who will be in hell, his justice is in jeopardy. How could a righteous God demand a double payment for the same debt? ‘But,’ we protest, ‘the payment is no good unless it is accepted.’ Calvinists point out that the important point is that God has already accepted Christ’s payment on the cross.” (The Doctrines That Divide, pp.183-184, emphasis mine)
The “kind friend” in this analogy, which is representative of Jesus, who bought out your sin-debt, expects to be paid. You still owe the debt of a “thousand dollars.” Now, you owe it to the Purchaser. The Law is still in effect: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18) Jesus offers two methods of payment: 1) You can perfectly keep the Law, without one spot or blemish, or 2) You can place your trust in Him, and He will forgive you of your sin-debt: “‘But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’--then He said to the paralytic, ‘Get up, pick up your bed and go home.’” (Matthew 9:6) “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” (John 5:24) Five-point Calvinists, like Lutzer, mistakenly believe that they simply got a free thousand dollars with no strings attached. Consider the analogy of a home mortgage. If the mortgage on your home is ever purchased by another lender, tell the new lender that since you are a Five-point Calvinist, that you believe that you are no longer obligated to make any further monthly payments since they have already, kindly paid off the mortgage for you, and that having paid it for you, any additional payments would constitute a “double payment.” What you’ll find in response is a legal foreclosure. The old lender is satisfied (1st John 2:2), but the new lender expects to be paid! God accepted Christ’s substitutionary payment at Calvary in order to become the new owner of your soul. “For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.” (1st Corinthians 6:20) The benefit of Christ as the new mortgagee of your soul is that He offers the free gift of the full forgiveness of your sin-debt, if you simply ask Him. However, if you fail to act on this offer, there is still payment option number 1: The Law.
Here is a Blog discussion on this point.
That’s a fair representation of Arminianism by R.C. Sproul. If there is one illustration of the atonement that Arminians point to, more so than any other, it would have to be Jesus’ explanation of the Cross at John 3:14 as He points back to the example of Numbers 21:6-9. Arminians often point to verses that state that Jesus has come to take upon Himself, the sins of the world (John 1:29), and that through Calvary, He has tasted death for every man. (Hebrews 2:9) Romans 5:15 and 1st John 2:2 are also often cited as proof-texts as well, and for good reason.
Thus, while Calvinists can talk about how Arminianism cheapens grace, the reality is that that argument ultimately blows up when you consider that grace is an offer, which is offered indiscriminately to all men without exception.
Question: Without Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace, when Jesus was on the Cross, is it at least theoretically possible, however unlikely, that He could have died “in vain,” if not even one depraved, immoral creature had ever believed in Him?
Answer: Are you forgetting the fact that when Jesus was on the Cross, Abraham’s Bosom was already filled with the Old Testament saints, not to mention all of those who were still alive on the earth that followed Jesus? So to answer the question, No. There was zero possibility that Jesus could have died “in vain,” when you consider the fact that at Calvary, He would at least saved those who were in Abraham’s Bosom, as well as those who followed Him during His ministry.
Question: Would God be a “failure” if someone that Jesus died for, perished?
Answer: Would God be a failure, if not all Israel had looked upon the bronze serpent of Numbers 21:6-9? (It’s inconceivable that anyone would say yes.) Nevertheless, the only way that God would be a failure is if one of His promises had proven untrue. However, when did God ever promise unconditional salvation? Clearly, God the Father set a condition for eternal life, as per John 3:16, and therefore God would only be a failure if someone met His condition and yet still perished.
Question: If Jesus took upon Himself, all of the sins of the whole world, according to John 1:29, then what sins would be left for the unrepentant to pay for in Hell? How could Judas be paying for his sins in Hell, if Jesus paid for everyone’s sins at Calvary?
Answer: Like the serpent on a standard at Numbers 21:6-9, Calvary is a provision.
You must access Christ’s blood, in order to receive His healing, and access to Christ’s forgiveness of sins is through faith in Him.
