How Reformation Arminian Soteriology

Safeguards Reformation Theology and

the Character of God
The sovereignty of God, his holy character, his love for his creation,
christocentric Election, predestination of believers, and salvation by grace through
faith (together with the five solas) are all affirmed in Reformation Arminianism, and
defended with all good logic, and in accord with good exegesis of the Scripture.

Regarding Sovereignty
Reformation Arminianism assumes Gods sovereignty. But this is done
without attributing to it a determinism which necessitated the fall of man, as if God
were the sort of god who wanted man to sin, or irresistibly caused him to sin. Rather,
God is so sovereign as to create mankind with the ability to think, act, and make real
choices; in short, God created man in his own image so as to be capable of personal
interaction with him, characterised by an influence and response relationship rather
than by cause and effect.
Some Calvinists think that sovereignty means that God ordains everything,
doubting that God could be so sovereign as to endow his creatures with a will to act.
Reformation Arminianism would seem to have a higher view of Gods sovereignty in
this regard than their Calvinist brethren. This is in keeping with Gods intentions in
creation that he have a genuine personal relationship with creatures created in his own
image.

Regarding the Holiness of God

Reformation Arminianism soteriology is rooted in the character of God. At the
core of Gods character is holiness. This core determines Gods actions; nothing he
does compromises his holiness. If God does not act justly, then there is no justice in
the universe, and all is utterly desolate. All else may be unjust, but God will never act
outside of his holy character.
A corollary to this is that Gods character demands that sin be punished.
Moreover, since God is just, the punishment must be equitable to the nature of the
offence. Since the Bible teaches that unredeemed mans punishment is an eternal hell,
one can only surmise that a sin against an infinite and eternal God deserves an infinite
and eternal punishment. Since God is just, he will not punish anyone more or less than
his due.
Because God is holy, he cannot arbitrarily overlook mans sin or let him go
unpunished. He cannot simply decide not to punish a person for his sins. Such a
failure to satisfy the justice of God would suggest that God himself is not just.

Regarding the Love of God

Yet, Gods love for his creatures is genuine, even though subordinate to his
holy nature. God does not have to save his fallen creatures in order to be just;
motivated by his genuine love for humanity, he may opt to do, so long as the just
demands of his holiness be fulfilled.
 Since man deserves hell, and since God cannot arbitrarily overlook mans
guilt, it would seem that God would be conflicted with himselfhumanly speaking,
since his love for humanity is genuine. However, God in his wisdom devised a plan so
that the just demands of his holiness be fulfilled while at the same time expressing his
genuine love for his creatures. This plan was devised in eternity past on the basis of
Gods foreknowledge of the fall of humanity.

Regarding the Satisfaction of Gods Holiness in Christ

This plan involved Gods Son bearing the sin of the world and its punishment
as mans substitute. Gods Son was sent to earth as a human to be fully identified with
the human race as a man. Upon the cross, all the punishment which was due to all
humanity was poured out upon Christ as mankinds substitute. In doing so, the
payment was provided for every sin ever committed.

Regarding Pecuniary and Penal Satisfaction

Yet, one must ask how punishing a substitute could be just or satisfy Gods
wrath that is due to an individual. It would not be just for Saddam Husseins mother
to be executed in the place of her son. In a pecuniary justice transaction, I might be
allowed to pay for my sons speeding ticket, but it would be a miscarriage of justice
for my son to go to prison in my stead.
In this regard, those advocating the penal satisfaction view of the atonement,
which claims that Gods justice must be satisfied, should be careful in articulating
their view. They are, in fact, in danger of claiming that God can arbitrarily punish an
innocent person and not the guilty person.

Regarding Union with Christ

The resolution to this conundrum is the doctrine of Union with Christ. It is
regrettable that modern day Calvinists are so ill-informed about this biblical doctrine,
especially when it factored so strongly in the theology of early Calvinists all the way
down to the late 19th century systematic theologians. Because of Calvinists lack of
basic understanding of Union with Christ, a vast amount of remedial work is
necessary for beneficial dialog between Reformation Arminians and otherwise
theologically astute Calvinists.
The reason why Calvinists are slow to accept the doctrine of Union with
Christ is that it undermines two apologetic concerns: 1) their claim that Arminian
soteriology ultimately renders a double penalty against sinners condemned to hell;
and 2) their untenable claim that Christs death effected atonement on the cross and
prior to a persons faith in Christ, apart from any subsequent application of the
atonement through the Spirit. Calvinists would rather own these two issues than
grapple with the foundational soteriological doctrine of Union with Christ.
Preliminarily, it might be noted that the doctrine of Union with Christ is
especially replete in the Pauline epistles. It is assumed in every in Christ reference.
Texts such as Rom 6:1-14, Gal 2:15-20, and Col 2:10-15 which speak of being
baptised into Christ, and dying and being raised in him, or being crucified with him
are germane to this doctrine, as is John 15:1-10. Indeed, the whole of Eph 1 is
predicated on the doctrine of Union with Christ, a point which is entirely missed by
Calvinist apologists who think that Eph 1 with all its emphasis on election is the death
knell of Arminian theology.
A person shares in Christs death and in his newness of life only when he is
united with Christ. Only through this union can a person experience Christs death
and resurrection for himself. Arminian theologian Leroy Forlines famously draws an
analogy from American history to explain how union with Christ makes penal
satisfaction just and righteous through substitution. Prior to Hawaiis statehood in
1959, Hawaiians did not share American history. They could not claim that their
forefathers endured Valley Forge or stormed the beaches at Normandy; neither could
they rightly celebrate the Fourth of July, nor sing the National Anthem in celebration
of the American flag still waving at Ft. McHenry. Yet all this changed when Hawaii
was united with the country and became the fiftieth state of the union. Thereafter,
Americas history came to be shared with Hawaiians. So it is with the person united
with Christ. Paul is able to say that the person who is united with Christ shares in
Christs experience of the death and resurrection, so that the person can truly say that
he suffered with Christ.
Thus, union with Christ bridges the gap between a substitutionary atonement
which does not actually punish the guilty personand hence miscarries justice, and a
penal satisfaction atonement which assumes that the guilty person himself must be
punished. Through Union with Christ, penal satisfaction and substitutionary
atonement combines to be just, logically credible, and entirely of grace.
Nothing could be said more emphatically than that salvation is in Christ, and
that no one shares any of the salvific benefits at all unless he is united with Christ.
Apart from union with Christ, Christs shed blood effects nothing. If someone dies
outside of Christ, then that person will face judgment having nothing to show in
payment for his sin debt, and will be condemned to hell where payment for his sin
will be exacted in full.
The good news for Calvinists is that they can hold to limited atonement along
with their notion that God elects people to believe without compromising the doctrine
of Union with Christ. However, in doing so, they must concede the Arminian claim
that atonement was provided on the cross and applied subsequently by the Spirit.
They must also forfeit their claim that the sinner condemned to hell makes double
payment for his sin. This is so despite Christ having died for the persons sin, since
the payment was never applied through union with Christ, and since God is just and
never demands that a sinner be punished more than he actually deserves.
Some of this discussion about how penal satisfaction is both substitutionary
and universal, illustrated as I have done with American historical references, may
seem pedantic, laborious, and even overly exact for biblical theology. However, I
think it is necessary, considering how often Calvinists cite the double penalty
argument against Arminians.

Regarding Faith
Union with Christ is through faith. It is through faith that we share in Christs
death and resurrection. It is through faith that we are crucified with him. It is through
faith that we have access to this grace in which we stand (Rom 5:2). The locus of
salvation is in Christ, and one must believe in order to be saved. No unbeliever is
united with Christ, and no believer is not united with Christ. Thus, union with Christ
is conditional upon faith.
The reason why Calvinists want to deny the role of faith in a persons being
united with Christ is that they think it would make faith a work. Let it be said in the
first instance that if salvation is through faith, then it is not by works. Since
Arminianism teaches that salvation is through faith, then it is prima facie illogical to
claim that Arminians teach a works salvation. There would seem to be something
sinister about a system of theology, Calvinism in particular, which would accuse
anyone who teaches salvation through faith of teaching a works-salvation. If it is
through faith, then it cannot be by works.
This is especially true since Arminians accept pretty much any Calvinists
definition of faith. Faith is the total self-abnegation of any merit or ability, and the
utter and total reliance on what Jesus did on the cross for ones salvation. When a
person comes to faith, he is utterly humbled and retains no sense of pride or self-
confidence. He casts himself in complete abandonment at Calvary and pleads the
blood and nothing but the blood for his salvation. In this regard, Calvinists seem
nothing but silly in claiming that Arminians teach a works-salvation. If it is through
faith, then it cannot be by works.

Regarding Faith as a Gift

After so many years of argument and debate, it is noteworthy that Calvinists
still claim that Eph 2:8-9 teaches that faith is a gift. However, the syntax of the
passage cannot possibly be construed to teach that faith is a gift, for faith is feminine
in gender, and the pronoun is neuterand any first year Greek student can confirm
this. The antecedent of the pronoun, then, is the entire clause: the gift of God is that
salvation is by grace through faitha primary Arminian urgency. The grammar is
indisputable, and one wonders why Calvinists who know better continue to cite this
passage as a prooftext against Arminians, or at least do not reign in their lesser
educated comrades who do so.

Regarding Total Depravity

Regardless, Reformation Arminians are quick to affirm that faith is a gift in
the sense that man is so totally depraved that he cannot believe without God
miraculously intervening and empowering him to do so. The affirmation of Total
Depravity by Reformation Arminians assumes that all humans still labour under the
effects of the Fall. Some Arminians think that Jesus death on the cross reversed the
effects of the Fall so that the depravity which would keep man from believing has
been lifted from the human race in its entirety. However, Reformation Arminians
deny this, affirming that every individual is incapable of faith in Christ until the Spirit
deals with him individually, bringing him under conviction and miraculously enabling
faith. While affirming the universal extent of the atonement, Reformation Arminians
dont assume that God miraculously enables every individual to believe, or that
everyone experiences Gods pre-regenerating grace.

Regarding Regeneration and the Gift of Life

While Reformation Arminians affirm that a person cannot believe unless God
miraculously enables them, Calvinists resolve the problem of mans inability to
believe by claiming that God regenerates him prior to faith. This is a step too far. The
way in which God grants new life to a person is to unite that person to Christ so that
he shares both in Christs death and his resurrection. Yet this only happens when a
person believes: union with Christ is through faith. For apologetic reasons, Calvinists
rush to embrace regeneration prior to faith without proper reflection. Yet, how can a
person have newness of life outside of Christ? How can a person be born again or
become children of God when he has not yet believed? Must we re-write John 3:16 to
say that whosoever receives eternal life shall believe in him, when the text
unambiguously states that God grants eternal life to whomsoever believes in him?
Another misstep in this rush to embrace regeneration prior to faith is that
regeneration is first and foremost the bestowing of newness of life, and this has
everything to do with sanctification and holy living. Calvinist soteriology would
catapult the person into the realm of sanctification prior to faith.
Ultimately, Calvinists have a stunted perspective of regeneration. They reduce
it to the single point of a persons life where he is enabled (and necessitated) to
believe. Yet regeneration is so much more than this. Regeneration is a part of being
born again, being adopted as sons, being begotten of the Father, sharing in Christs
life, receiving newness of life, living in the Spirit, experiencing life in the Spirit,
having the present possession of eternal life and the abundant life, all of which is
subsequent to faith.

Regarding the Resistibility of Grace

The miraculous work of the Spirit to enable a person to believe does not
suggest, however, that the person must, of necessity, believe, as if divine enablement
guaranteed the individuals positive response. Indeed, God is sovereign enough to
enable a person to believe while at the same time relating to him as a thinking,
feeling, acting being, capable of making choices as one who was made in the image of
his Creator. God in his sovereignty has chosen not to relate to mankind in a cause-
effect non-personal way, but in a personal way, which is only possible if man has the
freedom to reject God or trust him. To be sure, man is unable to put his faith in Jesus
without Gods miraculous enablement, but the enablement does not reduce man to a
non-personal entity or limit his choice to accept Jesus or reject him.

Regarding Salvation through Faith

In the Calvinists effort to erode Arminian teaching that salvation is through
faith, Calvinists push the argument too far. Ultimately, instead of teaching a doctrine
in accord with the Pauline dictum, salvation by grace through faith, Calvinists teach
salvation by grace unto faith. That is to say, they end up teaching that faith is a result
of salvation. Calvinists claim that the spiritually dead person receives new life, and as
a consequence, he believes. There is no other way but to describe this as salvation by
grace unto faith, but in so doing, Calvinists find themselves guilty of a major
perversion of a fundamental Pauline theological perspective.

Regarding Election and Predestination

Arminians affirm election, but in a way which is christocentric, rather than
decretal. A major criticism which Arminius levelled against the theology of those who
were attacking him was that they grounded election in an eternal decree. Arminius
argued instead that election is in Christ. Thus, union with Christ is the ground of
election since God in eternity past elected all those who would be united in Christ by
faith. Moreover, those who are in Christ are predestined to eternal life. The basis of
election in Arminian thought, then, is fully revealed as being in Christ, and is not
some mystery obscured by the dark counsels of a decree. Moreover, above anyone
else, Jesus is the Elect One, and no one has the status of being elect unless that are in
him.

Regarding Election and the Eternal Decree

This contrasts significantly with Calvinists who claim that salvation is
grounded in Gods decree to save some people and to damn the rest, the basis of
which is mysterious and can never be known. Perhaps one might even say that the
basis of such an election is arbitrary, unless one resorts to claiming that God made
some people with some special quality about him as to constitute the basis of election,
while others who were nonetheless made in the image of God lacked such a special
quality. The notion seems semi-gnostic in that the elect are viewed to have some
secret, God-endowed quality about them that others do not, so as to make them
qualitatively different from the reprobate. If this semi-gnostic notion is rejected, then
the only recourse is for Calvinists to say that election is arbitrary; either there is
something special about some humans and not others, or God arbitrarily chooses the
elect.
The Calvinist perspective of election, then, is decretal-centric, rather than
christocentric. Christocentric election is an election of all those who are in Christ.
Thus, the decree to save people is christocentric: God decreed to elect all who are in
Christ.

Regarding Election of Believers

Perhaps the most striking difference between Calvinists and Arminians
regarding election is that Arminians think that God elects or predestines those who
believe to salvation, while Calvinists think that election or predestination determines
who actually will believe and who will not. This latter position lacks any substantial
scriptural basis; no text suggests that God elects or predestines a person to believe, the
sole exception being Acts 13:48 which, in English, is typically mistranslated (see
Alfords commentary for the details).

Regarding Rom 9
Rom 9 is often claimed by Calvinists to be determinative in teaching that God
elects or predestines some to believe and not others. The reality, however, is quite the
opposite. Paul depicts his Jewish opponents as thinking that they were unconditionally
elect, perhaps because of their descent from Abraham (cf. John the Baptists
admonition to the scribes and Pharisees, And do not think you can say to yourselves,
We have Abraham as our father. I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up
children for Abraham). Thus, the entirety of Rom 9 is to counter the unfounded
Jewish notion of their unconditional election. When Jews appealed to Abraham as
their father, claiming that their rejection would not be fair, Paul replies, Who are
you, O man?, telling them that those who believe are the spiritual children of
Abraham. Thus, the sole difference between Israel whom God rejected and the
Gentiles whom he elected was that Israel did not pursue salvation by faith, but by
works (Rom 9:30-32). Thus, God, in his sovereignty, determined to elect those who
pursue salvation through faith, prompting the Arminian to ask the Calvinist, Who are
you, O man, to talk back to God?

Summary
Arminian soteriology begins, then, with a sovereign God who made man in his
image as a thinking, feeling, and acting being endowed with a quality which makes
him capable of having personal relationships, not only with other humans, but with
his Creator. In Gods plan from before time, God ordained to permit the Fall; he did
not decree or cause man to sin, but only made him capable of sinning.
In light of Gods foreknowledge of the Fall, and in light of his own holy nature
which would require that sin be punished, God ordained the plan of salvation and the
redemption of man. This plan involved sending his Son as a sacrifice for the
satisfaction of his holiness. The wrath of God which was rightfully to be poured out
on sinful man was diverted instead, so that Gods Son bore mans punishment in his
stead. God also ordained to save anyone who was united with Christ in his death and
resurrection.
It was also Gods design that the only way that the Spirit would unite anyone
to Christ is through faith in Christ, a faith made possible only by Gods miraculous
enablement. A person who puts his faith in Christ is one who utterly disowns his own
ability to do anything to save himself, and in utter humility cries out to Jesus as his
Saviour, and hence, is totally vacated of any boasting or any possibility of boasting.
The person who believes, then, shares the new life of Christ.
This outline of Arminian soteriology preserves the urgencies of the
Reformation: the sovereignty of God, the holiness of God, election and predestination,
and salvation by grace through faith.