“The distinct doctrines of Arminianism have to do with God’s sovereignty over history and salvation; providence and predestination are the two key doctrines where Arminians part company with the classical Calvinists.” ~ Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, p. 31.
The above is a really fascinating and important point. The charge is frequently laid at the feet of Arminians that they deny the gospel in some way. Yet Arminians fully believe the Jesus Christ, the God-man, died on the cross for sins according to the Scriptures - Paul’s summary of the gospel that is “of first importance.”
For Calvinists to conclude that Arminians deny the gospel in some way, they have to root the gospel not in the death of Jesus Christ, but in God’s predestinating will. In other words, a Calvinist has to make predestination (defined as “unconditional election”) the gospel. Sadly, that is exactly what many do.
For all our differences, classical Calvinists (of which I am) and classical Arminians have this in common: Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Scott 10.22.06 at 8:42 pm
As an Arminian, I say “Amen and amen!”
And we Arminians don’t help matters any; far too often, we are perfectly happy to define our Calvinist brothers and sisters solely by the “unconditional election” interpretation of predestination. We’d all do much better to spend more time talking about the stuff we agree on, huh?
Tony 10.23.06 at 12:20 pm
There are some “Calvinists” who make a necessary connection between the TULIP and the gospel, such that a denial of any of the points amounts to a denial of the gospel. The TULIP is not the gospel, but an elaboration on some doctrines that result from gospel truths viewed through the rest of scripture in contrast to the free will theology of Arminius. The gospel, properly speaking, concerns the revealed will of God, not the secret will of God. Some have revearsed this, as if one must believe the TULIP. In the revealed will of God, Christ suffers sufficiently for all mankind. In the secret will of God, Christ especially intended to suffer for the elect alone. That’s classical Calvinism.
Here’s the issue. Travis sums up the gospel by quoting Paul as saying:
“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.”
1) Now, the modern HIGH Calvinists, who believe in a limited imputation of sin to Christ, will read it thusly:
“Christ [with a singular intention] died for our [the elect's] sins according to the Scriptures.”
2) The Arminian will read it thusly:
“Christ [with an equal intention for all] died for our [all the sins of mankind] sins according to the Scriptures.”
3) Classical Calvinists read it as:
“Christ [with an unequal intention] died for our [the sins of all mankind] sins according to the Scriptures.”
All three parties still have the basic gospel message, but one or more of them are guilty of significant distortions.
Paul, when stating that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, was reminding the Corinthians of the gospel message that he first preached to them, i.e. when they were still unregenerate. Paul was indescriminately telling those at Corinth, whether they were elect or non-elect, that Christ died for their sins. Whoops! The high Calvinist position can’t be correct. Christ did, in one sense, die for the sins of all mankind.
Also, remember how Paul was initially called over to Macedonian during his second missionary journey. God told him that he had many people there, i.e. some who were appointed unto eternal life. Thus, God does not EQUALLY intend the salvation of all, even though he does desire the salvation of all. He loves all mankind, but especially his elect. It is for these that Christ ESPECIALLY came to die for.
What’s left but position #3? I think it’s most reasonable to conclude that Christ suffered sufficiently for all, but especially for the elect.
In articulating the gospel message and offering Christ to all, we should be willing to say what Paul said, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” What scripture(s) is he referring to? I think he at least had the suffering servant passage in Isaiah 53 in mind. Christ bears all the iniquities of all mankind in his penal substitutionary satisfaction, and we should not shy away from proclaiming that truth in the gospel offer. Richard Baxter rightly says in his work on Universal Redemption that:
“When God saith so expressly that Christ died for all [2 Cor. 5: 14-15], and tasted death for every man [Heb. 2: 9], and is the ransom for all [1 Tim. 2: 6], and the propitiation for the sins of the whole world [1 Jn. 2: 2], it beseems every Christian rather to explain in what sense Christ died for all, than flatly to deny it.”