(continued from part 1)

Of the atonement:
Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that Christ's cross 100% successfully accomplished its goal and intended result.  The difference, then, arises when we point out what each side sees as the intended goal and result.

Arminians believe that the goal of the cross was this: to provide a sufficient atonement for every single human head for head, such that anyone who desires to be saved, can and will be saved by believing the gospel.  Arminianism says that Christ successfully accomplished this goal and obtained the desired result.

Calvinism agrees with Arminianism at this point.  Calvinists affirm that one of the goals of Christ's death was to provide a sufficient atonement for every single human head for head, such that anyone who desires to be saved, can and will be saved by believing the gospel. In short, both views understand and agree that this goal was accomplished by Christ's work on the cross.

However, where Calvinism differs is this: there is a second goal that the cross intended to accomplish.  What is this goal? Simply put, it means this: Not only was Christ's death sufficient for all humanity (its value was infinitely sufficient - it was sufficient for 10 billion worlds of men), but in addition, it actually secured salvation for God's elect.  On the cross, people were redeemed, people were atoned for, and people were substituted for, literally, not hypothetically.  Everywhere we read in the Bible where the atonement is spoken of in detail it speaks in terms of actuality, not potentiality. Observe:

Isa 53:11  He willsee of the travail of his soul, and will be satisfied: by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many; for he will bear their iniquities.

Mat 1:21  She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

Rev 5:9  And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,

Eph 5:25-27
(25)  Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
(26)  that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
(27)  so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Joh 11:51-52
(51)  He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation,
(52)  and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

There's truckloads more, but you get the point.  None of these verses speak of potentiality, but actually.  He WILL save his people, He WILL gather all of God's children who are scattered abroad, He DID ransom people to God out of every nation making them priests, He WILL present his church to himself as without spot or wrinkle, by giving himself up for her, He WILL bear their iniquities, justifying "the many".

Therefore, the Calvinism atonement goes one step further than the Arminian atonement.  It doesn't do less, but more.  In the Arminian atonement, nobody at all is actually guaranteed to be saved, since it lacks this second, Biblical goal. However, the Calvinist atonement rightly sees that the Bible speaks of Christ's death as effectual, accomplishing redemption for a great multitude that no man can number - otherwise nobody at all would ever be saved!  I conclude that yet again, Arminianism fails at this point.  It sees the atonement as just a hopeful wish.  It sees Christ and God and the Holy Spirit crossing their fingers hoping it would be effective and not in vain.   In the Arminian view, Christ cannot truly be said to "see the travail of his soul and be satisfied" - for there was the possibility that nobody at all would benefit from the atonement! How can Christ be satisfied?  It sees the death of Christ as "might possibly save some people from their sins", instead of what the angel from heaven declared: "HE WILL SAVE his people from their sins" - period.

Furthermore, the atonement as seen by Arminianism does not secure certain spiritual blessings and fruits for God's elect.    Faith and repentance, for example, are not secured by Christ's work, but are self-produced by the unregenerate human will and then contributed to his or her salvation.  The Calvinist, however, sees that all spiritual blessings are in and through Christ and His finished work.  Therefore, Christ's death actually purchased and secured faith and repentance for all of God's people.  Hence, salvation - in full - is in Christ Jesus and Jesus alone.  Only then can we truly say "Soli Deo Gloria!". To God alone be all the glory for my salvation, my faith, my repentance, my spiritual fruits.

Eph 1:3-6
(3)  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
(4)  even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
(5)  he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
(6)  to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

Here Paul argues that God "has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing" - how is faith not included? Is faith not a spiritual blessing? In Arminianism, no, it is not.  It fails at this point.

Rom 8:28-33
(28)  And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
(29)  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
(30)  And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
(31)  What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
(32)  He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
(33)  Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

Here, directly after explaining the golden chain of redemption (foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified - all God's actions, so He gets all the credit, praise, and glory) Paul argues: "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?". Paul is arguing that if Christ is not spared, but given up for us, how, then, will God not also give us all things to accompany it?  Why would God give the greatest gift - the Son - but not also give the other, smaller, secondary gifts that make the giving of the first, bigger gift to any effect at all? (faith and repentance).  Paul is arguing that it would be foolish for God to give up the Son for us, but not also give us all other spiritual blessings.  It would be nonsense to be willing to give the greater gift, but not also the lesser gifts.  How is faith and repentance not included here? It is because, as said above, Arminianism sees these things not as spiritual gifts given to people by God himself, but instead, are the self-produced things by the effort of the fallen, unregenerate heart/will, who, while being opposed to God and hostile to Christ and finding the gospel foolishness, somehow was able and willing to create a right thought/attitude/choice about God despite those things! Crazy!

In the Arminian view, the Son, can be given, but "all other things" are not freely given - you must conjure them up, or produce them, somehow,  from your unregenerate nature.  This is contradictory to Paul's argument.

Furthermore, the Arminian view that faith and repentance are not gifts directly contradict the Bible in several places. These verses clearly teach that faith and repentance originate in and are given to us by God and are the result of the new birth, they are not the product of our unregenerate human nature. Observe:

Heb 12:2  looking to Jesus, the founder (author) and perfecter of our faith
So, Jesus, not me, is the author of my faith. All praise goes to the Christ!

1Jn 5:1  Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God
"everyone who believes" is in the present tense, in the Greek, grammatically, meaning, "Everyone who currently has ongoing, continual faith"
The phrase "has been born of God" is, grammatically, in the perfect tense, which means it already happened, or happened in the past.  Clearly, everyone who is believing in Christ today, does so because they were born of God prior to that.  If you do not believe me at this point, see these surrounding passages in 1st John:

1Jn 5:4  For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world
1Jn 3:9  No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
1Jn 4:7  Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

The author John consistently uses the present/perfect tense in the exact same way.  If anyone is overcoming the world, it is because they have been born of God prior to that - not to become born of God.  If anyone stops sinning, it is because he has been born of God - not to become born of God (born again).  If anyone loves each other, it is because they have been born of God.  Surely you would not suggest that what John is saying is that we BECOME born again by doing those things, right?  1 Jn 5:1 must be seen in the same consistent manner.

Php 1:29  For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake

So, two things are "granted" to us (given to us) 1) belief in Christ and 2) suffering for His sake.  They are gifts.  Faith is a gift, and suffering is a gift.

2Ti 2:24-26
(24)  And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,
(25)  correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
(26)  and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

So the Lord's servant must be many things, because God may grant them repentance.  Repentance is granted, it is a gift.

2Ch 30:10-12
(10)  So the couriers went from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun, but they laughed them to scorn and mocked them.
(11)  However, some men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem.
(12)  The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD.

Hezekiah's couriers went from city to city, and there were 2 responses: 1) people laughed and mocked (v10), and 2), people humbled themselves and obeyed the call to repentance. (v11).  So there are two responses to the call of repentance, a right one, and a wrong one.  Verse 12 clues us into the fact that the right response is a direct result of God's gracious work to "give them a heart to obey".  Repentance is a gift of God.

Eph 2:8-9
(8)  For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
(9)  not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Being "saved by grace through faith" is said to be "not your own doing, but a gift of God".  Some people insist that it is "saved by grace" that is the gift of God - but not faith.  However, if you know Greek, you know that the pronoun "and that" in the phrase "and that is not of yourselves" is a neuter word - which means it has no gender.  You will also know that "faith" is a feminine word.  In the Greek, there is a grammatical rule that says a pronoun MUST match its antecedent in gender and number. Which means that faith cannot be the thing that Paul describes as "not your doing, but a gift of God".  Arminians love to point this out.  However, they conveniently leave out the rest of the story!  The truth is, in the Greek "grace" is also feminine, and "salvation" is masculine!  Therefore, none of the words - individually - can grammatically be what Paul describes as "not your own doing, but a gift of God".  There is a rule in the Greek language that says anytime this happens, it means the author did it on purpose because he wasn't trying to focus on any individual antecedent, but rather, the collective phrase!  Long story short,  "by grace you are saved through faith" or "being saved by grace through faith" is in fact the thing that Paul says is "Not your own doing, but a gift of God".  Hence, faith is a gift, just as being saved by grace is a gift.  All of it is "not your own doing, but a gift from God".

Faith is a gift from God. Repentance is a gift from God.  The Arminian view says that they are not gifts from God to you, but your gift from you to God.  It directly contradicts the apostle who says "By the grace of God, I am what I am", and "What do you have that you did not receive? Why, then, do you boast as if you did not receive it?"

In light of these biblical evidences, I conclude that Calvinism, yet again, at the point of the atonement, is correct, and Arminianism falls short and is in error.  Arminianism does not see faith and repentance or any right response to the gospel as God's gift and a result of God's gracious work, and a secured blessing by Christ's work on the cross, but instead, the product of man's unregenerate nature - which, again, is impossible being that the unregenerate nature is hostile towards Christ to begin with and "finds the gospel foolishness".  Arminianism is a jumbled mess of bad theology that results in man getting too much credit for his salvation, and it turns God into a helpless bystander who is easily sent to a corner of the universe with a wave of the hand by the almighty human will.  God can save you, they say, if your will simply cooperates with him and you conjure up and offer him some faith.  Whereas the Calvinist will tell you that if you are saved, and are believing the gospel and repenting of sins, it is because those things were imparted to you as a gift, which was secured through Christ Jesus' work, because he planned on perfectly saving you from eternity past, without fail, and without subject to frustration, all for His purpose, and His glory.  So all praise and credit and glory goes to Him

That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who , through the grace of the Holy Ghost shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end,; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ.

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient assisting, awakening, following and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ.  But as represents the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. (Art 1&4)

The view of Arminius considered the elect to be ordained or predestined prior to the foundation of the world.  Christ died as an atonement for the sins of the world, but also for the effective salvation of the pre-ordained elect.  The unbeliever receives salvation through faith, as led by the Holy Spirit, not of his or her own accord or will (the implication is that one could reject, not that one could come to faith on their own).  Even then, though, Arminius viewed the elect as predestined and unchangeable before the foundation of the world.

Now, I am not trying to debate or argue with you.  I’m also not arguing for the Arminian view or against the Calvinist view.  But the remarks you presented regarding faith and works contributing to salvation (in the Arminian view) do not apply to Arminianism as a whole.

I realize that it would be impossible to address Arminianism as a whole as there are various views, but I am interested in your views opposing the views of Arminius.   

I have been trying to understand the difference between reformation arminianism and calvinism but resources seem limited as it seems everything I find addresses calvinism vs.a less concervertive view of arminianism.

Oh, and since I realize the subject, I probably should mention again that I am looking for understanding, not a fight :)

Isn't "accurate" and "Calvinistic" an oxymoron?   

I have half a book shelf full of books dealing with Arminianism from the Calvinist view, and while I agree with the Calvinist assessment of the view of Arminianism being examined, none actually address classical Arminianism (other than a few off remarks that it diminishes God’s sovereignty, but they do not adequately substantiate the claim).

I suppose every book written in the last 50years from a Calvinistic point of view to address Arminianism lumps the opposing view into it’s most liberal state, or at least Wesleyan Arminianism forward (or the Calvinist simply lumps all opposing views into Arminianism) as it’s an easier target.

Anyway, thanks for…..well…not recommending a bad book.   

It is my understanding that Classical Arminianism differs with the 5 points of Arminianism only in the area of the security of the believer.  Arminius, as I understand it, did not believe a Christian could lose his salvation.

It is also my understanding that many believers reject Calvinism and do not identify with Arminianism and hold to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints commonly called “once saved always saved.”

Based upon the wikipedia definition of Classicial / Historical Arminianism you then would lean toward the possibility of a saved person losing his salvation.  Would this be correct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminian#Classical_Arminianism

I should also note that the possibility of apostasy is not a defining point of classical arminianism (regardless of Wikipedia).  It is not what defines the view, nor is it necessary to that view (Arminianism includes those who do not hold that apostasy is possible – personally, I believe it is).  

Like Calvinism it is not a biblical doctrine, but an understanding derieved from theology, and therefore does not hold authority.  That is why I was looking for opposing views in book form to further explore that understanding.

But most arguments against Arminianism simply address liberal views that have arose, not the beliefs of Arminus or Classical Arminianism.  Skala pointed out this when he erroneously stated a difference between Arminians and Calvinist being the “second goal” of the cross.  The difference is not in the goal or points of salvation, Arminians (Reformation anyway), do believe that the cross secured salvation to the elect – what differs is in the understanding of the nature of the elect (not what or who the elect are, but if the elect were ordained or decreed to be elected).  What is attributed to Arminianism is potential salvation, but that is not the case.  God knew who would be the elect, and they will be the elect, they were pre-ordained or predestined to be so.  But their election was not unconditional, even though it became a certainty before the beginning of time as predestination.  To me, this is the differing point that has not been addressed but rather covered up by a smoke screen to divert from the original argument.  If one dismisses an original argument (Classical Arminianism) then one also dismisses post Classical views as well. So for the Calvinist who would like to explore or argue the views, it would probably be the best place to start anyway (Reason away Classical Arminianism and you'd also reason away varying views that have their foundation in that theology - but it doesn't work the other way around).

If you disagree with my view, please indicate the point of disagreement.  I am more than willing to correct my view if it is in error, but thus far posts on this issue have strayed from the basic discenting arguments (as far as Classical Arminianism is concerned).  Even apostasy is a diversion from the argument, but it is valid and welcomed as it is a view I hold that I've struggled with.

To have faith is to believe.  It is doing something.  In that sense, in the sense of doing something, it is every bit a work as in other something that one might do.