11 January, 2007

Logic 201: Rev. Brian Schwertley on Salvation

The Arminian view of Christ’s atonement not only contradicts the biblical definition of Christ’s redemptive work, but also contradicts itself. An examination of three options regarding Christ’s death will prove that Arminianism is irrational. Jesus Christ paid the price and endured God’s wrath against sin for either: 1) all the sins of all men, 2) all the sins of some men, or 3) some of the sins of all men. If number 3 is true, then all men still have the guilt of some sins to answer for. This would mean that all men will go to hell, for it only takes the guilt of one sin to merit eternal damnation. If one holds to option 2, that Christ died for all of the sins of some men, then one believes that only some men (i.e., God’s elect) will be saved and go to heaven. This is simply biblical Christianity; that Christ actually achieved the salvation of all of God’s elect. The non-elect are passed by and perish. Arminianism, or inconsistent universalism, holds to position number 1, that Christ died for all the sins of all men. If this position is true, then why are not all men freed from the punishment of all their sins. The Arminian will answer: “because they refused to believe in Jesus Christ. They are guilty of unbelief.“ But this unbelief, is it a sin or is it not a sin? If unbelief is not a sin, then why should anyone by punished for it? If unbelief is a sin, then Christ was punished for it in His death. If Christ paid for this sin as all others, then why must this sin stop anyone from entering heaven more than any of the other sins (e.g., murder, adultery, homosexuality, etc.). Furthermore, if Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief, then one cannot say that He died for all the sins of all men. The Arminian cannot escape from the horns of this theological dilemma.


Notliberal said...

Tis a shame that Schwertley is off in Wisconsin, I would love to hear him preach in Michigan again.

Mark said...

Sweet timing... I just read a good chapter on the Arminian/Calvinist debate and how it relates to postmodernism. The whole thing does a lot to undermine Christ's power, which is really the sad thing about it.

Highland Host said...

This of course is why Arminianism tends to deny substitution completely. They preach (as Dr. Scroggie, himself Arminian) put it 'A gospel of recoverability'. We do not. We preach a Gospel of recovery.
The Wesleys were inconsistent. The taught substitution, but a universal atonement. Most thoughtful Arminians teach a governmental atonement.

Daniel Ritchie said...

What a brilliant quote - Brian Schwertley takes them to pieces.

Droll Flood said...

-I have wondered in the past if Arminians thought that unbelief was a sin or not. That quote decapitates the whole contrary arguement.

-There is also a grave failure to account from where faith itself comes: the death and resurrection of Christ. You are left with two choices:
Christ died and you come up with adequate faith on your own accord
it comes as a gift from God as a part of salvation which Christ effected by His life, death, and resurrection.