The Ghastly Gospel of Limited Atonement

To be a consistent five-point Calvinist, a person must believe the Bible teaches that the benefit of Christ’s death is limited to actually having paid for the sins of only the unconditionally elect.[1] This means that the non-elect are condemned for rejecting what does not exist. To begin with, it is important to distinguish between the intent of the atonement (why), extent (for whom) and application (when) while maintaining the relationship of these distinct features of the atonement.[2] Continue reading →

Is Reprobation Necessary for God to Demonstrate His Holiness and Wrath?

According to Calvinism, God voluntarily predetermined for some of the human race to experience salvation in order to display His mercy, while concomitantly and voluntarily predetermining to pass over most of the human race, thereby inviolably destining them to perish in hell. The former are known as the unconditionally elected and the latter are known as the reprobate. This predestination is said to be necessary in order to display both His grace and His wrath.

For example, commenting on Romans 9:11ff, John Calvin plainly says, “The reprobate are expressly raised up, in order that the glory of God may thereby be displayed. At last, he concludes [referring to Paul] that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth (Rom. 9:18). You see how he refers both to the mere pleasure of God. Therefore, if we cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will. When God is said to visit in mercy or harden whom he will, men are reminded that they are not to seek for any cause beyond his will.”[1] Continue reading →

Extensivism’s View of the Origin of Sin and God’s Offer of Salvation

In a previous article I explored Calvinism’s view of the origin of sin and salvation through the lens of their belief in compatible freedom and the “mysteries” that such a view generates. To read it, just search “Calvinism’s View of the Origin of Sin and God’s Offer of Salvation” (posted on October 31, 2016).

This article looks at Extensivism’s view of the same issues. In this article I use Extensivism (broadly) as encompassing all soteriological perspectives that see God’s love and salvation plan as provisioning salvation by faith for everyone, and this in contrast with Calvinism’s exclusive plan, which only includes some people—the unconditionally elect.[1] Continue reading →

Calvinists Do Err: Superimposing Compatibilism & Determinism upon Extensivism

Paul Helm demonstrates an error common among Calvinists, which is to evaluate the cogency of Extensivist’s understanding of God’s salvation plan that includes man being endowed with libertarian freedom through the grid that compatibilism is prima facie true.[1] Rather than evaluating whether Extensivism provides a comprehensive, coherent and biblically consistent perspective. Continue reading →

Does God Have Two Wills?

Recognizing that the simple and straightforward message of Scripture is that God loves everyone and truly desires for everyone to hear the gospel and be saved by faith in Christ leads some Calvinists like John Piper to postulate that God has a secret will in which He does not desire everyone to be saved.

That is to say, by what we know from Scripture and the good news of the gospel, it appears that God wills that all be saved by faith in Christ, but secretly He wills that His public will, as revealed in Scripture, be superseded by unconditionally electing only some to salvation and choosing to pass over the rest of humanity. Thus, we are to believe that according to God’s revealed will (Scripture), God loves every person and desires that every person be saved (John 3:16; Titus 2:11), but in His secret will He only wills to make salvation actually available to the unconditional elect. Continue reading →

Calvinism’s View of the Origin of Sin and God’s Offer of Salvation

Calvinists believe that man is free to choose according to his greatest desire. For example, Jonathan Edwards believed in what he called “strength of motive.”[1] He said concerning such, “I suppose the will is always determined by the strongest motive.”[2] Therefore, Edwards argued that one freely chooses to act according to his “strongest motive.” Regarding the nature of free choice, he also said that it is “the ability to do what we will, or according to our pleasure.”[3]

Consequently, according to Edwards, man’s freedom to choose is determined by his nature and his desires. In other words, man is free to choose to do his greatest desire. Of course, this is the Calvinist view of free will as defined by compatibilism.[4] It is important to note two very important components of this view. First, the desire or nature from which the desire emanates is not chosen—i.e. a person’s past. Second, the unchosen desire is in fact determinative of what the free choice will be. Continue reading →

Some Thoughts Regarding Election and Man’s Choice

At times, I post actual interactions that I have with Calvinists in order to allow others to consider both sides of an issue. This is what I have done in this article. The following is a response that I interacted with regarding my article, “Why Some Non-Calvinists Identify as Calvinist” that appeared on SBC Today.

I begin by giving a summary of his questions or concerns, which are supposed to tip the scale toward God choosing to save some unconditionally (UE). This is followed by my restating each of his statements individually and briefly interacting with each one in the rest of the article. I hope you find this helpful. Continue reading →

Decoding Calvinism: Does Unconditional Election Include a Forced Change, a Freely Chosen Change, or Both?

There are many examples of confusing language regarding man’s free exercise of faith in Calvinism. Lewis Sperry Chafer responds to Arminians’ rejection of the term “sovereign grace” and their charge that such coerces or annuls the human will by saying, “No step can be taken in the accomplishment of His sovereign purpose which will even tend to coerce the human volition. He does awaken the mind of man to spiritual sanity and brings before him the desirability of salvation through Christ. If by His power, God creates new visions of the reality of sin and of the blessedness of Christ as Savior and under this enlightenment men choose to be saved, their wills are not coerced nor are they deprived of the action of any part of their own beings. It is the unreasoned objection of Arminians that the human will is annulled by sovereign election.”[1] Continue reading →

Compatible and Libertarian Freedom

A Comparison between Calvinism’s Compatible View of Moral Freedom and Extensivism’s Libertarian Freedom

In order to understand the actual contrast between Calvinism’s view of the nature of God, His sovereign rule over His creation, and His salvation plan, with that of Extensivism’s view of the same, one must understand the two position’s vastly different views of what it means for man to be free to choose and be responsible for his choices.

I use the term Extensivism in this article as a general term that encompasses various orthodox perspectives that believe God truly desires for every person to be saved. This desire of God is evidenced by His extensive salvational love and provision for all (John 3:16; John 2:2). Extensivism stands in contrast to Calvinism’s exclusive perspective which limits salvation to only the unconditional elect.[1] Continue reading →

Thoughts Regarding “Extensivism,” and Why I Chose the Term to Represent My Perspective on God’s Great Salvation Plan

I use the term Extensivism to encapsulate my soteriological (salvational) understanding. I gave considerable thought in choosing the term. Although only used by me (hence, the need to continuously define for others), it does seem to be free of negative connotations and appears to me to be a suitable parallel for discussing soteriology within this Calvinist/non-Calvinist theological milieu in which I live. That is, consistent Calvinism is soteriologically exclusive (limited salvific love, limited unconditional election, limited efficacious call, limited atonement, etc.); whereas, we who disagree with that exclusive approach do so because we believe the Scripture teaches an extensive soteriology. The term also permits me to avoid spending time defending the nuances of other non-Calvinist perspectives with whom I agree on many points. Continue reading →