|
|
|
|
 |
Grace, Faith and Freewill. Contrasting Views of Salvation: 
There
has been, in recent years, a resurgent interest among God’s people in the
Doctrines of Grace. These doctrines have been nicknamed Calvinism, and
are summarized by the acrostic TULIP:
Each point of doctrine is
meant to convey what the Bible teaches concerning the extent of mankind’s
sinfulness; God’s gracious election of certain sinful men to salvation; God’s
provision for the forgiveness of their sin by the death of His son, Jesus
Christ; God’s faithful and sovereign effectual calling of these sinners to Him
self; and the sinner’s persevering obedience in godliness until he is glorified
in death.
Much of the resurgent
interest in Calvinism is due in part by many godly men proclaiming the
doctrines of grace on Christian radio and in published books. Individuals such as Presbyterian theologian
R.C. Sproul, Baptist pastor and writer John Piper, Christian apologist James
White, Bible teacher John MacArthur, and the leaders of the Founders movement
within the Southern Baptist denomination.
These individuals, as well as a host of other like-minded preachers and
theologians, articulate the Calvinistic doctrines well, and as a result, they
have gained a large hearing in the Christian Church. While it may appear to be a
good thing to teach Christians doctrines that promote God’s sovereignty and
grace, there are those who are sickened by any teaching that would, in their
minds, take away man’s freedom of choice and represents God as being a loveless
tyrant. Rather than understanding
Calvinism to be a God exalting theology that is faithful to the Bible’s
teaching on predestination, they view these doctrines as a serious threat to
the character of God and gospel evangelism. Thus, in order to assuage the swell of
Calvinistic teaching surging through out the Church, several books have been
published as a wall of defense against what is perceived to be grievous error
that has flooded the congregations of God’s people. Oddly, the authors of these polemics roam
diverse theological territories in American Christianity. For instance, Larry Vance, a King James Only,
separatist fundamentalist, wrote The Other Side of Calvinism, a book
that is saturated in conspiratorial nonsense and radical, historical
revisionism. However, seminary
professor, Dr. Norman Geisler, a mainline evangelical usually vilified by
fundamentalists like Vance, has written a semi-scholarly work against Calvinism
called, Though these authors, and others
like them, maintain divergent biblical opinions from one another, the one front
where they are united is the belief that Calvinism is bad for Christians. The problem with these books, however, is that
the authors have the reputation of hunting down “Calvinistic” windmills and
slaying straw dummy caricatures of Calvinism, rather than dealing specifically
with what Calvinists have taught and why they believe the Bible teaches these
doctrines. The books are hardly close
to being fair with the subject they are criticizing. In truth, these types of books read with
hysterical emotion; proclaiming that historic, biblical Calvinism teaches an
entirely different God than the one of the Holy Bible. Moreover, they are often times poorly researched, with the
authors either ignoring Calvinistic thought in Church history, or twisting
around historical fact. Dave Hunt, for
instance, claims Calvinistic Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon, really didn’t
believe in Calvinism, even though a cursory reading of his printed sermons
would demonstrate Hunt is badly mistaken.
In addition to such revisionism, the authors typically re-invent
theological language, rather than dealing with it in its original, historic
context. Norman Geisler annoyingly calls
him self a calminian, a supposed hybrid position between the beliefs
held by Calvinists and their Arminian detractors, and considers anyone who
holds to classical 5 point Calvinism as practicing extreme Calvinism. George Bryson, in a similar manner, invents
the entirely new term hypo-Calvinists to describe a Christian who is not
a hyper-Calvinist, but who would hold to what is garden variety, historic
Calvinism, what would be Geisler’s extreme Calvinism. Sadly, these books do not really
deal with the true heart of the historic debate surrounding the nature of
saving grace. Christians, for nearly two
millennia, have polarized themselves into two specific camps of belief in
either synergism or monergism about salvation. Both camps are almost identical in their
definitions of salvation, except for one specific and important nuance. The
first camp believes that sinners have within themselves the spiritual ability
to co-operate with God in one form or another, either to believe by their own
personal faith upon Christ, or earn some merit with God, to synergistically
work out their salvation. The second
camp believes sinners have no spiritual ability what so ever and believe men
can never co-operate with God to bring about their salvation. God alone is monergistically the
author and finisher of man’s salvation, even to the point of freeing sinners
from the bondage of sin and imparting saving faith so that they can believe
upon the gospel. Historically, the
Roman Catholic Church has been identified with the first camp and the
Protestant Reformation with the second.
The first written debate of the Reformation was between Roman Catholic
scholar Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther and the debate was about this
specific distinction that separates these two camps. The anti-Calvinistic apologists overlook this
historical aspect when they write their books, and it is an important
distinction to identify when addressing Calvinism. It is ironic that Dave Hunt, a prolific
writer and debater against Roman Catholicism, would advocate their synergistic
views on saving faith in his book against Calvinism. Now,
with that brief introduction in mind, it is important to note that in spite of
all of the terribly argued and grossly incompetent books written to oppose
Calvinism, there are some authors who have produced a fair and honest
evaluation of that theological system.
Dr. Robert Picirilli would be one of those authors who produced a fair
and honest evaluation of Calvinism with his book, Grace, Faith and
Freewill. Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and
Arminianism. Any honest
Christian must be willing to examine fairly the arguments of those who disagree
with him without reverting to theological and historical revisionism and Dr.
Picirilli has done just that with his book.
In turn, I desire to be such an honest Christian as well. I will admit up front before I even proceed
with this review that I would consider myself a biblical Calvinist. I believe a consistent exegesis of the text
of scripture will affirm all five points of Calvinism. I do not make the Bible
teach Calvinism by reading my theology into scripture, as some detractors of my
position suggest Calvinist do, but I believe the proper study of the Bible will
yield the theology of Calvinism. In addition to that, I am also quite aware
that there are reformed Calvinists who have the bad reputation of hunting down
and slaying the “windmills” of Arminianism when they review that theology. It is my sincere hope that I would entirely
avoid any miss-characterization with my comments directed toward my
disagreements with Dr. Picirilli’s work.
I believe it is vitally imperative that I represent the position of
those who would dissent from what I believe the Bible teaches, and rather than
interacting with a contrived caricature, I want to interact with Dr.
Picirilli’s core, Arminian beliefs and the argumentation he puts forth in
defense of his system of theology. Dr. Robert Pircirilli is
the former academic dean and professor of Greek and New Testament studies at the
Free Will Baptist Bible College in My aim is to present what I
call “Reformation Arminianism,” by which I mean the views of Arminius himself
and his original defenders. This is an
Arminianism that has too often been lost sight of by friend and foe alike, and
it is eminently virile and defensible.[1] His book lays out his case by first giving the
historical background to Arminius’s theology and the Remonstrant’s disagreement
with traditional Calvinism. I truly
appreciated this historical survey in his opening chapters. It was unlike the myriad of other
anti-Calvinistic books, similar to the ones I mentioned above, that argue
against Calvinism in an historical vacuum, as if there is no historic
background to the Doctrines of Grace.
Dr. Picirilli then proceeds to outline Arminian theology and the larger
body of his work provides a biblical exegesis for his case. During that process, as he builds his
arguments, he interacts with Reformed Calvinism, answering their
counter-arguments and offering Arminian rejoinders . There are several areas of
commendation with Dr. Picirilli’s book.
First and foremost, I appreciate the fact that he does boldly proclaim
that he is an Arminian. He is not the
least bit ashamed of this designation.
This is a sharp contrast to the typical critics of Calvinism,
particularly those from the separatist, fundamentalist wing of
Christianity. They have the tendency of
putting up this disingenuous aire of, "I'm not an Arminian, nor a
Calvinist; I only believe the Bible."
That attitude just indicates to me that such a person usually has no
clue about the key issues surrounding the debate. Also, I was pleased with
how Dr. Picirilli wrote respectfully and honestly when examining the
disagreements between the two systems.
His discussion didn't spiral down to a mournful remembrance of
Servetus's burning, as if that event some how discredits the theology of the
Reformers. Moreover, he wasn't trying
to hunt down any Calvinistic conspiracies with his work, and the tone he took
when writing was pleasant. It was not
the shrill, nails on the chalkboard tone that often is found in books against
Calvinism, where the author writes in all CAPS when he emphasizes a point, as
if to scream at the reader. Then finally, I was
refreshed that he bathed his book in a reasonable amount of exegetical study of
the original, biblical languages. As I
was lamenting above, the books I have read in the past critiquing Calvinism are
devoid of any meaningful exegesis and I mean that with all sincere honesty. If the serious student scanned the books I
mentioned by Hunt, Geisler, Vance and Bryson, for instance, he would find that
their exegetical work on the pertinent biblical passages under dispute between
Arminians and Calvinists is just plain terrible. Granted, there are some authors who try to do
exegesis of the relevant passages and sometimes it is decent. For example, the theologians I. Howard
Marshall, R.C.H. Lenski,[2]
and Fredric Godet have written various commentaries from their Arminian
perspective that interacts well with important chapters from the scripture like
Romans 9. However, with the average
pamphlets, booklets, and books meant to expose the evils of Calvinism, it is
painfully obvious that the authors are ignorant of the original languages, or
lack any true theological sophistication to interact with the exegetical
arguments of the proponents of Calvinism.
Dr. Picirilli was not like this and I felt that he had some good work to
consider. However, in spite of these
fine points, the book did disappoint me to some degree, and this is where I
want to spend the remainder of my review by highlighting a handful of those
disappointments. 1) The core
theme is built upon philosophical presuppositions, not the biblical
text. The title of Dr.
Picirilli’s book is Grace, Faith and Free will.
Because, free will is a key doctrine of his theology, I was
hoping that there would be an extensive study of the subject. However, he does not give any real biblical
discussion to the nature of free will to establish it upon scriptural
grounds. His over all study of election,
the atonement, regeneration and perseverance, operates from the presupposition
that all men have libertarian free will, that being, an ability to distinguish
between two opposing choices. This is what philosophers call the liberty of indifference,
and it is the supposed liberty that men have to make real choices without any
interfering influence upon the person choosing.
It appeared from my reading that Dr. Picirilli assumes this
presupposition outright, without question, before proceeding to outline his
arguments. In my opinion, such a
presupposition is detrimental to his overall thesis, because it does not have
the scriptural high ground, so to speak.
Throughout his entire book, I was hard pressed to find any in-depth, scriptural
study on the subject of free will and whether or not the Bible teaches that it
is a necessary component to man’s nature to begin with or any study that shows
the significance of free will in the work of God’s salvation. Furthermore, I was expecting Dr. Picirilli to
interact with the Calvinistic understand of man’s will, but his book lacked
that study as well. Where Dr. Picirilli does
provide some hint of a discussion on the nature of free will is in two areas of
his book. First, in the third chapter
entitled, The Classic Arminian Doctrine of Predestination[3],
and the fourth section of his book entitled The Application of Salvation[4],
but most of this discussion is again philosophical, not biblical. The third chapter is the most interesting,
because it is there that Dr. Picirilli offers up his understanding of how God,
being all knowing of all future events, relates to man’s free will
choices. It is his attempt in providing
the Arminian solution to a problem that has vexed philosophers and theologians
over the centuries: that being, how can we say, on the one hand, that a man is
truly free in the choices he makes, yet on the other hand, affirm what the
Bible teaches about God’s exhaustive knowledge of all events in the future? Put another way, if God has complete
knowledge of all future events, and all future events must play out as God
knows them, or his attribute of omniscience (all knowing) is compromised, how
then can we say that men make real, free will choices? Dr. Picirilli begins to
answer that dilemma by first pointing out his disagreement with Calvinism in
understanding the relationship between the terms certain, contingency,
and necessary. His discussion of
these three terms is difficult to grasp; it even took me several readings to
figure out what he was trying to say.
What I gather from his study is that he first understands the term certain
as descriptive of those events that are certain to happen because God knows
perfectly all events that will transpire in the future. Dr. Picirilli writes concerning certainty,
“The so-called ‘certainty’ of an event means nothing more than its ‘eventness,’
the simple fact that it will occur – and God knows that it will.”[5] Then, under that broader category of certainty,
there is contingency and necessity. A contingency is any free act of
morally responsible persons. These are
decisions that can cause events to go in more than one way. According to Dr. Picirrili, contingent events
made by choices of free creatures does not contradict the certainty of that
event. In fact, states Dr. Picirrili,
“The same event can be both certain and contingent at the same time.”[6] A necessity
is any event that can only transpire in just one way. This is an event that must inevitably be the
way that it is, and according to him, the causes leading up to that necessary
event allowed no freedom of choice. Though Dr. Picirilli
devotes 4 to 5 pages to outlining the Arminian theology surrounding these three
terms, he does not provide any biblical support for his argumentation, nor does
he have biblical examples of any of these three terms playing out in the
scriptural narrative. In addition, he
does not satisfactory provide answers to the many obvious objections that could
be leveled against his definitions. For
instance, he does not interact with how Calvinists understand the biblical
teaching about man’s will. Calvinist’s
Christians do not deny that men have wills and the ability to choose with their
minds, they just believe the Bible teaches that man’s will is not free from the
power of his sin nature. Just as man has
the physical limitations in order to will to walk on water or fly like a bird,
he is also restricted in the moral choices that he makes. In other words, the choice for a man to fly
like a bird is restricted by his physical limitations, and in like manner, the
moral choices a man makes with his will is determined by his nature. And according to scripture, men are enslaved
to sin (John 8:34; Roman 6:16,20), their minds are darkened so that they do not
understand spiritual truth (Ephesians 2:1-3, 4:17-19), and they have no ability
to do any spiritual good from their own person, that being, obey God or believe
the gospel savingly (John 6:44, 65;
Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14, 12:3).
Dr. Picirilli seems to suggest, at least in this section of his book (he
affirms man’s depravity in a later section of his book), that the will of men
is some how separated from their overall character, thus a thorough interaction
with the Calvinist’s belief, as well as the scriptures that under gird the
Calvinist position on the will of man, would have been an immense improvement
to his study and establishing his argumentation. The most glaring objection
to his Arminian position on man’s will and God’s knowledge is the fact that his
discussion does not truly provide an adequate solution to the proposed
dilemma. Even if God allows for
contingent events to take place in His world, shaped by the choices of His free
creatures, those creatures will still need to make the choices that God
foreknows as certain in the future, or God is made to be mistaken about what He
knew would come to pass.[7] I believe one problematic element to Dr.
Picirilli’s supposed solution is the fact that he assigns an errant definition
to the word foreknowledge. By that,
I mean that he defines foreknowledge as God gaining information or knowing
facts about events in the future before they play out in time. This is the
typical Arminian understanding of foreknowledge. It is God foreseeing faith in a person and
then electing and predestining a person to salvation based upon that foreseen
faith. Thus, the Arminian view is that
God foresees, or foreknows, and then foreordains based upon that knowledge. Dr. Picirilli writes that God foreknows all
possibilities about the future, and then He chooses and ordains that course of
action He wills to set into motion. The Calvinists object to
the Arminian definition of foreknowledge because it is not in keeping with the
biblical language of the various writers.
Rather than believing foreknowledge is defined as God foreseeing future
events, particularly human faith, Calvinists believe that the Bible defines
foreknowledge around the Hebraic understanding of knowing as involving a
relationship experienced with individuals, and this especially refers to God’s
covenant love for His people (see for example, Ex. 33:17; Deut. 7:7,8; 10:15;
Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Matt. 7:22,23; 1Cor. 8:3; 2 Tim. 2:19). Moreover, Dr. James White points out 6
exegetical nuances of the word foreknow that are normally unaddressed by
Arminian writers. Those points are
summarized as follows: (1) the primary passages that should inform our
understanding of the word foreknowledge are those that have God as the
subject of the verbal form. (2) The
verbal form of foreknow is used three times in the NT with God as the
subject: Rom. 8:29, 11:2 and 1 Pet. 1:20. (3) The key issue lies in the objects
of God’s action of foreknowing. What
or who is foreknown by God? In Rom. 8:29, the direct object refers back
to “the elect” in vs. 28; in Rom. 11:2 the object is “His people;” and in 1
Pet. 1:20 the object is Christ. (4)
Every time God is portrayed as foreknowing, the object of the verb is personal. (5) To say that God foreknows acts, faith,
behavior, choices, etc. is to assume something about that
term that is not witnessed in the biblical text. In other words, God foreknows persons
not things or choices. (6)
And then last, as already mentioned above, the Jews understood knowing as
involving relationships experienced with individuals.[8] Therefore, when the biblical writers speak
of foreknowledge, they are speaking of a direct action on God’s part. God is more than merely passively gathering
information, and then ordaining His plans upon what He knows will happen. Thus, Dr. Picirilli’s Arminian scheme falls
at two identifiable points: First, it fails to take into consideration all of
the exegetical data regarding the language of election, foreknowledge,
predestination, etc, and it does not really allow for genuine free will, but
only for partial free will or a limited free will. Because, in order to maintain the integrity
of God’s omniscience, free creatures have to make the choices that lead to the
accomplishment of God’s plans. Joseph,
for instance, had no other choice but to take Mary with him when he obeyed the
Roman decree to return to his place of birth, so that God’s prophecy about the
messiah being born in 2) The exegesis offered in the book, though excellent
at times, is not as careful and as thorough as it should be. Unlike
most of the books written against Calvinism by fundamentalist pastors that
attempt to discredit the system with emotional pleas and superficial study of
the important texts of scripture, Dr. Picirilli actually interacts with the
exegesis of both the Calvinistic system and his own Reformed Arminian
system. So, for example, instead of
arguing for the universality of Christ’s atoning work by writing in bold,
block, capital letters THE WORD “WORLD” MEANS “WORLD” and then
concluding that Jesus died to pay the penalty for the sin of everyone who has
ever lived with out exception from the sweetest grandma to the cruelest serial
killer, Dr. Picirilli tries to make his case with sound exegesis and a
reason-able application of Bible study. Regardless of this welcomed
approach from a studied professor of theology, however, I was somewhat let down
by his research, because it did not go far enough in my opinion. In a sense, I felt as though Dr. Picirilli
used just enough study of a particular passage to make his case for his
Reformed Arminianism, but then he would stop and leave off interacting with any
contextual nuances or other related passages that would challenge his
exegetical conclusions. Such neglect
tends to harm his case, and leaves the reader wondering if he had done all of
his homework. Let me give a couple of
examples to explain what I mean. Contrary to what most
Calvinists would think, Reformed Arminianism does affirm the doctrine of total
depravity in a similar way the Calvinist would define it. Dr. Picirilli outlines the Reformed Arminian
understanding of total depravity in his section on the application of
salvation, and in fact, he even departs from most of his contemporary Arminian
counterparts when he writes his defense.
He states his points as follows: 1. Since the fall of Adam and Eve, all human beings
inherit from the original parents a corrupt nature, as inclined toward evil now
as Adam and Eve were toward good before the fall. 2. In consequence of this condition, man’s will is no
longer naturally free to choose God apart from the supernatural work of the
spirit of God. 3. Therefore, left to him self, no person either can or
will accept the offer of salvation in the gospel and put saving faith in
Christ. 4. This condition may rightly be called total depravity,
in that it pervades every aspect of man’s being, and total inability, in that
it leaves him helpless to perform anything truly good in God’s sight.[9] I, as a Calvinist, would agree with Dr.
Picirilli. Adam’s sin has corrupted
mankind with a sin nature that renders all men who are born sinners with no
ability to come to God on their own.
Yet, Dr. Picirilli’s affirmation of total depravity begs a crucial
question: if men are so corrupted by sin that no person can, or even will
accept the offer of salvation, then how exactly can any person be said to have
free will in the manner he argues for in his book? In order to work around
what is an apparent contradiction in his theological conviction, Dr. Picirilli
appeals to what is called prevenient grace. The idea of prevenient grace was introduced
by Arminius to deal with this problem of men being in spiritual bondage to sin,
yet still have the ability to exercise a free will. Dr. Picirilli explains prevenient grace as,
“that grace that precedes actual regeneration and which, except when finally
resisted, inevitably leads on to regeneration.”[10] He re-titles prevenient grace as pre-regenerating
grace, and describes it further as “that work of the Holy Spirit that
“opens the heart” of the unregenerate…to the truth of the gospel and enables
them to respond positively in faith.”[11] In Dr. Picirilli’s Arminian system, a sinner
is given grace to believe, but that grace only allows the sinner to be freed
from his depravity long enough to choose to either believe the gospel, come to
Christ, then be regenerated, and finally be saved; or it allows the
sinner to reject the gospel, resist the work of the Spirit, and return to a
life of spiritual darkness. The key difference between
the Calvinist understanding of regeneration and the Arminian notion of
prevenient grace, or pre-regenerating grace, is that Calvinists believe that
when God imparts His grace, it is to regenerate a sinner, and it will always be
effectual. Where as the Arminian teaches
God only imparts grace, not regeneration, and that grace can be resisted, the
Calvinist teaches that men can only believe the gospel if they are first
regenerated, and everyone who is regenerated by God’s grace will believe the
gospel, trust Christ and come to salvation.
In the Arminian system, faith precedes regeneration; in the Calvinistic
system, regeneration precedes faith. Dr. Picirilli appeals to a handful of New
Testament passages to demonstrate his understanding of pre-regenerating
grace. For instance, he equates
pre-regenerating grace with the biblical terms of “drawing” (John 6:44),
“opening the heart” (Acts 16:14), and “opening blind eyes” (2 Corinthians 4:4),
and states that this terminology is only meant to express a pre-regenerating
grace, not actual regeneration. However,
this is an example of where his exegesis does not go far enough in establishing
his argument. Dr. Picirilli quotes
Jesus’s words in John 6:44 is support of his position, Scripturally, this concept
[pre-regenerating grace] is intended to express the truth found in passages
like John 6:44: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me
draw him.” In this light, pre-regenerating grace may be called drawing.[12] But, he fails to finish the verse. Jesus actually said, “No man can come to me,
except the Father which has sent me draw him and I will raise him up on the
last day.” The remainder of the verse is vitally important to defining what
Jesus meant with the word “draw.” If we
are to understand that “draw” has in mind the Reformed Arminian notion of
pre-regenerating grace, then how can pre-regenerating grace be resisted as the
Arminian teaches? Jesus states rather
emphatically that everyone drawn by the Father to him will be raised up on the
last day. Moreover, the entirety of the
context of Jesus’s words begins in John 6:37 and finishes to the end of the
chapter. In John 6:39, Jesus says, “This
is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should
lose nothing, but should raise it up at that last day.” The raising up of the
last day is connected to the Father’s giving to the Son and the reason those
drawn to Him by the father do come is because they have been given to the Son
by the Father. If Christ’s words are
true, and I believe Dr. Picirilli would say that they are, then how exactly can
his pre-regenerating grace ever be resisted by those to whom it is given? This is one area where his exegesis does not
take into account the details of the whole of Christ’s words and when they are
considered in their entirety, Christ’s words contradict the teaching of
pre-regenerating grace. Actually, what
is revealed in the Bible is that in every instance when God imparts his saving
grace it is to regenerate a sinner and that sinner always comes to
salvation. Never is there a biblical
example of a person rejecting the regenerating power of God by subduing it with
his will. Proponents of universal atonement frequently appeal
to 1 John 2:2 as a proof-text for their position. John the apostle writes: “And He himself is the propitiation for our
sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” Those holding to a
universal atonement understand John to be saying that Christ is the propitiation
of the sins of not only all Christians, but of every single person who has ever
lived in all places through out the whole earth. Calvinistic Christians, on the other hand,
understand John to be saying that Christ is the propitiation of not only the
sins of those Christians he is writing, but also all Christians through out the
whole earth at all times and in all places. Dr. Picirilli devotes a
good portion of chapter seven to an in depth study of 1 John 2:2 as a passage
that teaches the Arminian point of universal atonement.[13] The bulk of his study is to show how he
believes the word world in 1 John 2:2 means that Christ’s death is intended to
be salvific for all humanity without exception.
This is opposite the Calvinistic viewpoint that contends that Christ’s
death, though it was absolutely sufficient to merit the redemption of the
entire world with out exception, was intended by the Father to only secure the
salvation of those for whom He elected in eternity past. These are the ones given to the Son and drawn
to Him by the Father, and the ones the Son raises up on the last day as is
described in John 6:37-45. Dr.
Picirilli provides three key reasons why he believes John’s words in 1 John 2:2
are to be understood as universal in scope: 1). John’s use of the word “world” through out his
epistle leads to no reason but to conclude that he meant the whole world of
humanity with out exception. 2). John’s use of the first plural “we/us” contrasted
with the phrase “not ours only, but for the sin of the whole world” is meant to
be taken as John talking about Christians (we/us) and the entire world of
unbelievers. 3). John’s teaching on the atonement leads to the only
conclusion that it was offered as a sacrifice on the behalf of the sins of the
entire world. However, in response to Dr.
Picirilli’s key reasons in favor of a universal atonement there are a handful
of exegetical points he tends to gloss over, at least in my mind. First, John’s use of the word world,
translated from kosmos, has a variety of meaning in all of John’s
epistles, as well as his gospel and the book of Revelation. Some commentators have suggested that John
has at least 18 different uses for the word world throughout all his
writings. In order to determine which
use John has in mind, the student of scripture will need to pay close attention
to the context. That would include the
broader context of the passage, the chapter, and the theme of the entire book,
along with the immediate context where the word is used. Dr. Picirilli points this fact out in his
study of 1 John 2:2, and he concludes that of the 23 times world appears
in 1 John, the consistent use by the apostle is in the sense antipathetic to
the church and Christians.[14] However,
it does not follow that if John means to use world as being hostile to
Christians that such a use nullifies the Calvinist understanding of the
passage. Christians are elected and called from a world hostile to the Church
to begin with. Also, Calvinists appeal to
other factors in the passage to determine what John has in mind, for instance,
his use of propitiation in the immediate context. Dr. Picirilli mentions the significance of
this word in passing during the course of his study on 1 John 2:2. As he points out, the word propitiation
has the idea of appeasement of God’s wrath.
But that definition has severe problems with proponents of a universal
atonement, because if Christ has appeased the wrath of God against the whole
world, then the question can be asked, “what remaining sin is in need of
propitiation of those who go to hell?”
Calvinists believe, with strong exegetical foundation, that the death
Christ died completely satisfied the wrath of God against sinners and that it
accomplishes the salvation of those for whom it is made. This is the reason why the Christian can be
assured of Christ’s advocacy in regards to their sin. First John 2:2 is connected to verse 1 with
the Greek conjunction, kai, translated as “and.” Christ’s role as the advocate for sinning
Christians is conditioned upon his role as their wrath appeasing
sacrifice. Hence, if Christ’s
propitiation is to be understood as universal, in that all men without
exception are atoned for by Christ’s death, then all men have Christ
interceding for their sin in the role of advocate on their behalf. But, we know from John’s own pen that the
whole world lies in wickedness (1 John 5:19) and those born of God keep
themselves from sin. It is contradictory
to suggest, as Dr. Picirilli and other universal atonement proponents do, that
on one hand, the sins of the whole world have been propitiated and Christ acts
as their advocate before God, yet on the other, they still remain in their sin
and will be judged for it. Thus, this is
the reason Calvinists believe the word propitiation has a limiting
affect upon the word world. The
old Scottish theologian, George Smeaton, summed up this fact well when he
wrote, It is a perversion of the
language when this is made to teach the dogma of universal propitiation; or
that the atonement was equally offered for all, whether they receive it or not,
whether they acknowledge its adaptation to their case or not. The passage does not teach that Christ’s
propitiation has removed the divine anger in such a sense from all and every
man. Nothing betokens that the apostle
had others in his eye than believers out of every tribe and nation.[15] Most importantly, I believe Dr. Picirilli misses an
important theme highlighted throughout all of John’s writings, particularly his
gospel, and that is how the gentiles will be included with the Jews as heirs of
salvation. The gentiles were considered
the whole world, or the rest of the world, and when John speaks of Christ’s
salvation being offered to the entire world, he means to convey the extent and
scope of Christ’s saving work beyond the borders of There are other similar examples of a lack of follow
through with Dr. Picirilli’s exegesis.
Though I appreciate the study he did offer, my contention is that it
would have bettered his book to give a fuller treatment to Calvinistic exegesis
of the biblical texts. 3)
The book lacked interaction with a wide range of Calvinist writers and
theologians. Probably the key reason Dr.
Picirilli’s exegesis was incomplete at times, along with his presuppositions
unchallenged, is the fact that he lacks serious, in-depth interaction with a
wide variety of Calvinistic writers. Now, that is
not to say that he only read secondary sources critiquing Calvinism from
opponents of the system, much like Dave Hunt did with a lot of his research in
his deplorable, little book, What Love is This? Dr. Picirilli does interact with classic
systematic theologies written by such men of Calvinistic conviction as Louis
Berkhof and William Shedd, and he does interact with Calvinist theologian Roger
Nicole’s various journal articles and books defending particular redemption.
However, even though he gives mention to other Calvinist writers, thinkers and
theologians, those are the three main authors he consistently quotes. I would readily admit that these men are
worthy defenders of their particular brand of Reformed, Calvinistic theology,
but systematic theologies only devote a small section of the overall work to
addressing the disagreements between the two systems of Reformed Calvinism and
Reformed Arminianism. Perhaps Dr.
Picirilli’s book was developed from a class syllabus he has taught for many years,
and he has lacked the opportunity to up-date his research, I wouldn’t
know. However, I believe Dr. Picirilli
needed to recognize more recent works by Calvinists, ones that give a more
comprehensive study of the subject at hand.
For example, the recent collection of essays edited by Bruce Ware and
Thomas Schriener called Still Sovereign; James White’s The Potter’s
Freedom, the rebuttal book to Norman Geisler’s, Chosen, But Free;
R.K. McGregor-Wright’s tremendous critique (as well as, devastating) of free
will theism as a theological system, No Place for Sovereignty: What is Wrong
with Free Will Theism; and of course the one book that has introduced
generations of Christians to the doctrines of Grace, David Steele and Curtis
Thomas’s brief work, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended,
Documented. In fact, I was rather
surprised that he totally overlooked any reference to John Owen's monumental
study on the atonement, The Death of Christ. I believe he may had referenced it once or
twice, but even though it was written well over 300 years ago and Owen’s
exegesis is arduous to climb, it is the Regardless of these
shortcomings, the overall effort made by Dr. Picirilli in his work Grace,
Faith, and Free Will, is worth the time for an honest Calvinist to
consider. Though Dr. Picirilli’s book
will remain limited in its readership, primarily because Picirilli is a member
of a small, out of the mainstream denomination, it is not the typical
anti-Calvinist hack job that is commonplace.
If a truly honest Calvinist wants to know what Reformed Arminians think,
this is the book to pick up. It will
help place theological Arminianism in a proper perspective, because honesty and
clarity with those who disagree with our positions should be a pursuit of God’s
people. [1] Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views
of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism, ( [2]
An excellent critique
of Lenski’s views of Roman 9 from a Calvinistic position can be found at:
http://aomin.org/Lenskirep.html [7] Interestingly, open theists
recognize this problem with the traditional Arminian position. They argue that even if God only foreknows
what free choices a person will make in the future, that person will still have
to make those choices, or God is made to be mistaken about what he knew that
person would decide, or worse yet, be made into a liar. According to open theism, if God knows any
thing a person will choose in the future, that person does not truly have the
ability to exercise free will. Thus, in
order to safe guard man’s will, open theists conclude that God has voluntarily
restricted His sovereignty and omniscience (all knowingness) as to what happens
in the future, so that God can be surprised by what men choose. Clark Pinnock, one of the chief proponents of
open theism, argues that God is delighted or angered by the choices his free
creature make. Pinnock argues that our
assurance with God does not come from His exhaustive knowledge, but with the
fact that God has the wisdom to handle any surprises that may arise. Moreover, God has not predestined a blue
print of what he wants to have happen in the history of the world, but God has
predestined purposes and goals that he pursues with his free creatures and the
choices they make. Theologian, Robert
Reymond, points out that Pinnock and his open theists cohorts fail to answer
three important questions with their theology: (1) can a risk-taking,
self-limiting God who rarely if ever intervenes in the free choices and actions
of human agents know that history will end the way he envisions and predicts without
having to rob creatures of their freedom? (2) Can this God who does not
know the future hold false views about the future? (3) Why should Christians
pray to such a God for the salvation of absolutely free agents? A New
Systematic Theology of The Christian Faith, 2nd ed., Robert
Reymond ( I must point out so that there is no confusion, that Dr. Picirilli completely rejects open theism and in fact, devotes an excurses in his book pointing out the theological errors with open theism as a system of theology (Grace, Faith, and Free Will, 59-63). Regardless of his objection to open theists, their overall complaint toward traditional Arminianism and its inadequacy to provide a solution to man having absolute freedom of the will in light of a God with exhaustive foreknowledge, is quite telling. In my mind, the open theist is merely taking Arminianism to its logical conclusion. [8] James R. White, The
Potter’s Freedom, (Amityville: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000),
198,199. Two other excellent surveys on
the nature of foreknowledge and its biblical usage can be found in Steele and
Thomas’s, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented,
(Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1963), 85-91 and S. M.
Baugh’s essay, The Meaning of Foreknowledge, in Still Sovereign:
Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge and Grace, edited by
Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995,200), 183-200.
Please let me know about new Articles & Bible Studies from Fred's Bible Talk. © Copyright 2002-2007 Fred Butler All Rights Reserved |  |
