For those who are not familiar with Louis Ruggiero, he runs an apologetics website called the King Messiah Project. He is quite Arminian in his theology, and has been charged by some of being a Pelagian (although he denies this charge). He is known primarily for his diatribes against Calvinism. For example, some time back, he and Matt Slick tried to set up a debate on Total Depravity, but the debate was scrapped because Lou would not stick to the topic at hand. More recently, he has published a book called The God of Calvinism: A Rebuttal of Reformed Theology. He attempts to present it as a rebuttal to Dr. White’s The Potter’s Freedom, and interestingly enough, the foreword is written by none other than Ergun M. Caner. Unfortunately, I don’t have a copy of the book with me right now (although one of my friends who has dialogued with Ruggiero before does, and perhaps I can borrow it from him). So, until I can get my hands on the book, I will instead deal with an article he has posted on his website titled, Refuting the Tulip With the Fear of the LORD.[1]

Early on in this article, he already makes some mistakes regarding the nature of foreknowledge. He writes,

I’m sure we can all agree that God is omniscient, He is all knowing. He knows all things past, present and future. How do we know that God knows the future? The proof is in the prophets. For example, Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin…before it happened, Jeremiah 25:11-12 foretold of Israel’s seventy-year captivity in Babylon…before it happened, and Micah 5:2 revealed that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem…before it happened.

On an individual basis, God also knows everything that will occur in the future…before it happens. Here are a few examples:

First, when Abraham’s son Isaac married Rebekah, she eventually became pregnant with twins. When the twins began struggling within her, Genesis 25:22-23 tells us what happened. She said:

“…why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; AND THE ELDER SHALL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”

According to this passage, the LORD knew the fate of both twins before they were even born. Just like God said, it came to pass that the elder Esau served the younger Jacob.

Another example in the Bible proving that God knows all things beforehand is found in John 6:70-71, where Jesus said to Peter:

“…Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.”

How could Jesus possibly know that Judas would betray Him? Unless of course, His Father told Him!

Here’s another example where God knew what an individual would do before he did it: Remember when Jesus informed Peter that he would deny Him three times, before he denied Him three times? How did Jesus know that Peter would deny Him? Unless of course, His Father told Him!

The point is this: Even though we have free will, God is all-knowing and knows all free-will decisions we make before we make them. There is nothing that we can do to surprise God. For example, if we suddenly decided to sing or count from 1 to 20, God knew we would do it beforehand.

Before Esau was born, God knew he would despise his birthright. And before Jacob was born, God also knew he would covet Esau’s birthright and offer to trade it with Esau for some venison. God also knew that Esau would choose to accept Jacob’s offer. This is why Romans 9:13 says, “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Does anyone really think that God arbitrarily hated Esau and loved Jacob for no apparent reason? Well, Calvinists do!

Here, Ruggiero misses the point when he cites the various instances of God’s knowing what would happen. It must be stressed that the very reason God knows these things would happen is because He planned them in advance. For example, God did not merely know in advance what the fate of Esau and Jacob were. He tries to undercut what Romans 10:13 says by saying that God chooses Jacob over Esau because God knew in advance that Esau would trade in his birthright. However, the verses preceding verse 13 preclude that explanation since it quite clearly states that God made His choice prior to any consideration of either brother’s actions. As Paul explains:

Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
(Romans 9:10-13)

We can therefore see that Ruggiero’s interpretation of that passage simply cannot stand, because it would turn Paul’s entire argument on its head! Besides, Calvinists do not say that God chooses “arbitrarily… for no apparent reason.” One thing that must be noticed is that in almost every passage that deals with election, God’s purpose is spoken of. That is the key here: God has predestined us for a purpose! Now God does not always reveal His purposes for acting the way He does. After all, His thoughts are higher than our thoughts and His ways our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). One purpose that we can ascertain though from reading this passage in context, though: “He did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory” (Romans 9:23).

The same can be said of the example of Judas. Yes, God knew that Judas would betray Jesus. However, this is in accordance with God’s plan because is because it is necessary for Judas to betray Him. For this reason, Jesus said to His disciples when He was arrested,

Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.
(Matthew 26:55-56)

Moving on, we find Ruggiero attempting to make the case that God chooses believers into salvation because He knew that they choose Him in advance. He writes,

Before we expose Calvinism’s view on Unconditional Election as an attack against God’s very character and nature, let us address the predestination and free will issues first. In the beginning, God decided to create mankind for both fellowship and a relationship. Even before He created Adam and Eve, He knew they would fall. Though He would give them the choice to eat or not to eat the fruit of the tree, He knew they would disobey Him. Why? It’s simple: because God knows all things!

God also knew that because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, they would pass down their sin-nature to all future generations. As a result, this would prevent everyone from having a close relationship with Him. Though some would choose to have a relationship and some would opt against it, it really wouldn’t matter. Because of sin, it would be impossible for anyone to have a relationship with God

So, what did God do before He created man? The answer: He decided to send them a Savior, His own Son. This is why Revelation 13:8 indicates that the Lamb was “…slain from the foundation of the world.”

Now God’s plan for mankind’s salvation was in motion. Those who would choose to fear Him, love Him, and covet a relationship with Him would have a way. The way would be the cross. Just like Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Why does God call His people the elect, as 1Peter 1:2 states, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…?” The answer: foreknowledge. It’s that simple! God knows beforehand, through His foreknowledge, everyone who will choose to fear Him. And His elect, individuals who choose to fear Him, would be shown the way. And it all begins with having the fear of the LORD.

Ruggiero misunderstands what it means for God to foreknow people. Foreknowledge (in Greek, πρόγνωσις, with the verbal form προγινώσκω which is translated “to foreknow”) in the human level would mean knowing something in advance. This is how the word is used, for example, Acts 26:5 where Paul says, “They have known [προγινώσκοντές] me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.” However, as any good exegete knows, it is a mistake to assume that any given word takes on only one meaning at all times. When πρόγνωσις is used to refer to God’s foreknowledge, it becomes a term that expresses God’s having planned something out since eternity past. As the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament explains:

1 Pet 1:20 refers to Christ in a statement deriving from an earlier tradition and asserts that he was destined (by God, cf. the pass.) before the foundation of the world (cf. 2 Tim 1:9f.; Titus 1:2f.); this foreknowledge is not simply knowledge without participation, but rather a “Creative willing” (Chelkle 50 n.3)… The noun πρόγνωσις, which in Jdt 9:6 refers to the predestining knowledge of God, expresses in Acts 2:23 God’s foreknowledge, which is God’s firm plan according to which the Israelites (v. 22) crucified and killed Jesus of Nazareth (cf. Luke 24:26f., 44-49; Acts 3:18; 13:27; 26:23)… In the introduction to 1 Peter (1:1) the readers are addressed as “chosen” in accordance with God’s foreknowledge (v. 2). This election is based on God’s decree and obligates the chosen person to a responsibility that is manifested above all in obedience…[2]

We see here that 1 Peter 1:20 is mentioned. In this verse, it is written that “He was chosen [προεγνωσμένου] before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.” Obviously, God did not just know about Christ in advance, but the plan for Him to be incarnate in the flesh, suffer, die and rise again was conceived by the Godhead in eternity past. For this reason, the apostles said, “This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge [προγνώσει]; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross” (Acts 2:23), and, “Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen” (Acts 4:27-28).

Also, consider this: In Romans 8:29, we read that “For those whom he foreknew [προέγνω] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Now, if Ruggiero is correct, then why on earth would God even need to predestine us to be conformed to the image of His Son? After all, God apparently looks down the corridors of time and sees in advance that we’re going to do this according to our own willpower. The same is true of Ephesians 1:11, where it says “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.” Why would He even need to conform anything to His plans or work anything out if He knew that we were already going to do these things on our own? Once again, we see that Ruggiero’s attempt to override monergistic election only succeeds in turning the apostle’s arguments on its own head.

Skipping a few paragraphs, we come to Ruggiero’s attempted refutation of the doctrine of Total Depravity. Here, we can understand why the charge of Pelagianism has been levelled on him despite his denial of this charge. Historically, Arminians such as the Wesley Brothers and even Jacob Arminius himself affirmed the doctrine of Total Depravity. However, we see that modern day Arminians (under the influence of that heretical nineteenth century evangelist Charles G. Finney) often end up denying even this one point which separates them from rank Pelagians. In his attempted refutation, Ruggiero writes,

As we begin to unravel the doctrinal confusion adopted by those who embrace Calvinism, we need to remember one thing: God has always been a God who provides choices. For example, Deuteronomy 30:19 says, “…I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”

After reading this verse, it becomes apparent that mankind has the ability to make the proper choice with respect to salvation. Even after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, Genesis 3:22 described them as follows:

“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil, etc.”

Genesis 3:22 reveals that, after Adam and Eve sinned, they knew both good and evil. And Deuteronomy 30:19 indicates that mankind still had the ability to choose either life or death. This proves one thing: even though mankind is considered spiritually depraved, this doesn’t necessarily mean that we are totally incapable of making the correct choice with respect to our own personal salvation.

Keeping this in mind, let’s take a look at Calvinism’s misconception of mankind’s total depravity:

According to them, mankind’s spiritual downfall prevents everyone and anyone from making the proper choice regarding salvation. They believe that it is impossible for us to come to God on our own. However, this position seems to be in clear contradiction to the Scriptures. Once again, Deuteronomy 30:19 provides the evidence because, if man was totally incapable of making the correct decision to choose life, why would God say to choose? It doesn’t make any sense, does it?

In summary, it all begins with God. He has instilled a conscience in every single one of us. Based on our consciences, we make the choice. Since God has foreknowledge, He just happens to know the decisions we will make before we make them. It’s that simple!

The problem is that our consciences are flawed as a result of the fall of Adam. For example, the prophet Jeremiah states, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, NKJV). The consequence of this is the natural tendency of man is to drift away from God. As we read in Psalm 14:

The LORD looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.

All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.

Will evildoers never learn—
those who devour my people as men eat bread
and who do not call on the LORD?
(Psalm 14:2-4)

One might try to argue that the passage is only referring to the Jews in the time of the Old Testament. However, this argument is inadmissible, since Paul quotes this passage in Romans 3:10-12, and universalizes it, stating that “Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin” (Romans 3:9).

So yes, we do make a choice. Unfortunately, because of our sin nature, the only choice we are naturally capable of making is the choice to turn away from God. And yes, God commands us to choose between life and death, but at the same time, unless God effectually draws us to Himself, our default choice will always be death. It is like how Jesus commands Lazarus to rise up and come out of the tomb. The only reason Lazarus is even able to obey this command is because Jesus brought him back to life. It is the same with us: We are, in the words of scripture, “dead in trespasses and sins… by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:1,3, NKJV). Dead men cannot make the decision to come back to life and crawl out of their graves. So what happened to us who are saved? The answer comes to us in the verses that come next: “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.” (Ephesians 2:4,5). Also, “it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Romans 9:16, NASB). We see that God does not simply “preveniently” places us in a neutral state in between life and death. We are either alive, or we are dead. There is no middle ground.

Next, we come to Ruggiero’s attempt to take down unconditional election and irresistible grace. He writes,

If you think Calvinism’s position on Total Depravity is scripturally baseless, take a look at what it teaches about Unconditional Election. According to Calvinism, God has unconditionally or arbitrarily elected those to be saved before the foundation of the world solely on the basis of the counsel of His will, not taking anyone’s accountability into consideration. As a result, no matter what anyone does, some are pre-destined to salvation, and the rest are pre-destined to damnation. This view is not only without merit, but also quite ludicrous. But there’s more! This is where their position on Irresistible Grace kicks in. Regarding Irresistible Grace, they believe that God spiritually draws to Him only those who He has unconditionally pre-selected for salvation before the foundation of the world. According to Calvinism, as far as God is concerned, the rest can burn in hell…and God doesn’t care!

Have you ever heard anything like that in your life? These doctrinal positions insult God’s very nature and character to the highest possible degree, portraying Him as a sadistic monster.

Notice that Ruggiero does not attempt to interact with the scripture passages from which unconditional election and irresistible grace are derived. Instead, he gives us what basically amounts to an “argument from outrage,” and then proceeds to cite scripture passages regarding how God’s relationship with His people is likened to a marriage. Obviously, no Christian (Calvinist or Arminian) denies that, and it really has no bearing on whether the points in question are biblical or not. Maybe I’m just not understanding his argument, but I fail to see how “Calvinism’s views on Irresistible Grace and Unconditional Election completely violate this clear Bible principle,” as Ruggiero alleges.

That being said, it is rather nonsensical to argue that the Reformed position implies that “no matter what anyone does, some are pre-destined to salvation, and the rest are pre-destined to damnation.” The whole point of placing Total Depravity first in the TULIP is that the reason why God has to elect people to salvation in order for them to receive the offer of the Gospel is that because of man’s sinful nature, no matter how many times the Gospel is offered to man, he will reject it. Why should we complain when God does not save those who have no desire to even accept that which is “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16, KJV)? Besides, this view of salvation is man-centered: It assumes that God is obligated to save anybody—He isn’t! Whether anybody wants to accept it or not, the Bible is clear that the only thing we deserve to receive from God is eternal condemnation! Those of us who are saved are not saved because of anything in us, but are saved out of sheer unconditional, unmerited favour. For this reason, John says “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12), but goes on to say that those who are adopted into the family of God are born again “not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God” (John 1:13).

Moving on, Ruggiero writes concerning irresistible grace:

Let’s take a look at Calvinism’s view on Irresistible Grace: They believe that God regenerates and spiritually draws to His Son only those who He arbitrarily chose, or unconditionally elected before the foundation of the world. With all due respect, this concept likens God to a spiritual caveman who sees a pretty girl, hits her over the head with a rock, and drags her off to a cave, giving her no choice at all. That’s nonsense! I didn’t have to do that to my wife, and God doesn’t have to do that to His!

According to the Bible, Calvinism’s claim that a person’s spiritual regeneration takes place before faith in Christ is incorrect; and, Titus 3:4-6 provides the evidence. It reads as follows:

“But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour.”

This passage teaches that one’s faith in Jesus as Savior is the catalyst or springboard to receiving the Holy Ghost, and it is He who does the regenerating. So, man’s regeneration comes after confessing Christ, not before!

First of all, Ruggiero has misrepresented the Reformed understanding of what irresistible grace means. Grace is irresistible in the sense that God removes the blinders from our stony hearts so that we cannot help but see His radiance and be drawn to it as a moth is drawn to a flame. This is best exemplified in the book of Ezekiel.

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
(Ezekiel 36:25-27, ESV)

Note that God makes us desire to trust and obey Him. He does not drag us into Heaven kicking and screaming against our will. That is nonsense, as even Calvin denounced that concept and declared that it was a pagan notion:

…this fault they [the heathens] add… that when they do think of God it is against their will; never approaching him without being dragged into his presence, and when there, instead of the voluntary fear flowing from reverence of the divine majesty, feeling only that forced and servile fear which divine Judgment extorts Judgment which, from the impossibility of escape, they are compelled to dread, but which, while they dread, they at the same time also hate.[3]

More than that, Calvin also affirmed that whosoever will may come, and are only prevented from doing so by their own sinful inclinations. As he writes in his commentary on Acts:

Therefore, forasmuch as no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. I speak of all unto whom God doth make himself manifest by the gospel. But like as those which call upon the name of the Lord are sure of salvation, so we must think that, without the same, we are thrice miserable and undone. And when as our salvation is placed in calling upon God, there is nothing in the mean season taken from faith, forasmuch as this invocation is grounded on faith alone.[4]

That being said, Titus 3:4-6 does not say what Ruggiero wants it to say. It says nothing about the order of salvation. It doesn’t even mention faith, so how can this passage have any bearing on whether faith comes before or after salvation? To get an answer to that question, we need to look up other passages. I already brought up passages like John 1:13 and Romans 9:16 which mention that we are saved solely on the basis of God’s electing grace. Another passage that must be brought in mind is this passage from the first epistle of John: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him” (1 John 5:1, ESV).

It is worth looking at the verb tenses in greater detail. The first phrase is “Everyone who believes” (πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων). Note that this is the same phrase for “whoever believes” that appears in John 3:16. This will be very important as we go further along in refuting the Arminian misuse of John 3:16. The verb for “believes” (πιστεύων) is a present participle, which indicates continuous action in the present. The verb tense for “has been born” (γεγέννηται), on the other hand, is a perfect tense verb, which indicates a completed action in the past with effects continuing into the present. The importance of these verb tenses is that it indicates that being born again must come prior to belief in Christ. Unfortunately, not all translations properly communicate this, since γεγέννηται is inaccurately translated as a present tense verb rather than a perfect tense verb in many other translations.

To drive this point home, it is worth looking at another passage in the first epistle of John that also uses the same sentence structure: “If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices [πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν] righteousness has been born [γεγέννηται] of him” (1 John 2:29, ESV). Obviously, being born of God must come prior to our being capable of practicing righteousness. After all, this is taught throughout the Johannine corpus (cf. John 15:5 and 1 John 4:19). If we take the same rules of exegesis that are used in interpreting 1 John 2:29 and use them on 1 John 5:1, we will inevitably come to the conclusion that for us to believe in God, He must first make us born again, not the other way around.

Now, it is time to take just one last portion of Ruggiero’s article, which is his attack on Limited Atonement. He writes,

Let’s review Calvinism’s equally confused position on Limited Atonement, the L in the T.U.L.I.P. First, according to the Bible, the definition of Limited Atonement is as follows: God sent His Son into the world so that salvation can be provided to all those who choose to believe. John 3:16 states:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

AND

1John 3:23 adds: “And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.”

Keeping this in mind, Proverbs 8:13 defines the fear of the LORD in the following manner: “…to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, etc.”

As we can see, the fear of the LORD is man’s inward expression of humility and the hatred of sin. Moreover, Proverbs 1:29 reveals that this is a choice. Therefore, according to the Bible’s definition of Limited Atonement, Jesus died only for those that God foreknew would display these attributes. Upon our sincere expression of humility, hatred of sin, pride and arrogance, i.e. ‘fear of the LORD,’ Psalm 25:12-14 reveals that God points us in the direction of salvation and toward His covenant.

In retrospect, Calvinism’s position on Limited Atonement is quite convoluted. It teaches that Christ died only for those that God unconditionally or arbitrarily elected before the foundation of the world. Sad, isn’t it?

First of all, I have absolutely no idea how the passages from Proverbs relate to election and atonement in any way. It seems to me that Ruggiero is simply quoting willy-nilly passages without even bothering to do any exegesis of the passages that he cites. Second of all, nobody denies that God loves everybody. Matthew 5:43-48 makes it clear that God demonstrates His love even to the non-elect. However, at the same time it must be remembered that there is a distinction between the generic love of God which is bestowed upon all men without exception, and the covenant love of God which He gives only to His Church (cf. Romans 5:6-8 and Ephesians 5:25). A good analogy for this would be an ordinary wedding: The bridegroom obviously loves many people aside from his bride, but on his wedding day, he demonstrates a special love for his bride that he does not demonstrate to any other person. Since this is true of earthly marriage, then it must also be true of Christ’s marriage to His bride, since He is the selfsame Christ who created marriage, and has chosen to use it as an analogy for how He relates to His people.

That being said, it is absolutely true that everybody who truly believes in Christ will not perish but have eternal life. I already mentioned earlier that “whosoever believeth” in the Greek is πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων, which literally translates to “everyone believing.” However, this verse does not tell us about who will believe in Christ. In fact, one can turn the tables and say that this verse teaches particularity because it limits the promise of eternal to those will believe. It helps to read this verse with the one that comes twenty verses later: “Whoever [ὁ πιστεύων] believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects [ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν] the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36).

One final thing to note is that the usage of the world can mean different things in different contexts. For example, when the Pharisees are complaining about the large crowds that were following Jesus, they exclaimed, “Look how the whole world has gone after him” (John 11:19)! As is clear from the context, the Pharisees did not mean to say that every single individual in the whole world is following Jesus. Another similar passage is in Luke, which states, “Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth” (Luke 2:1, NASB). The context clearly indicates that “all the inhabited earth” is actually a hyperbolic expression that refers only to the Roman empire (hence the NIV’s translation of this passage as “the entire Roman world”).

For a more thorough explanation of the meaning of John 3:16 in its context, one resource I would highly recommend to readers is Benjamin B. Warfield’s article, “God’s Immeasurable Love.” While I recommend that readers read the whole article, let me just quote one section that speaks about the extent of the word “world” in John 3:16:

Obviously, then, the distribution of the notion “world” in our text into “each and every man” in the world, does less than justice to the infinitude of the love of God which it is plainly the object of the text to exalt in our thought. Reacting from the ineptitudes of this interpretation, and determined at all costs to take the conception of the love of God at the height of its idea, men of deeper insight have therefore suggested that it is not the world at large that is in question in the text, but God’s people, the chosen of God in the world.

Surely, it is God’s seeking, nay, God’s finding love that is celebrated here, they argue – the love which goes out to its object with a vigor which no obstacle can withstand, and, despite every difficulty, brings it safely into the shelter of its arms. The “world” that God so loved that he gave his Son for it – surely that is not the “world” that he loved so little as to leave it to take or leave the Son so given, as its own wayward heart might dictate; but the “world” that he loved enough, after giving his Son for it, powerfully to move upon with his quickening Spirit and graciously to lead into the offered salvation. This is the “world” of believers, in a word, as they are called in the following clause, or, as they are called elsewhere in Scripture, the “world” of God’s elect. It was these whom God loved before the foundation of the world with a love beyond all expression great and strong, constant and prevailing, a love which was not and could not be defeated, just because it was love, the very characteristic of which, Paul tells us, is that it suffereth long, is not provoked, taketh no account of evil, beareth all things, endureth all things, yea, never faileth: and therefore was not and could not be satisfied until it had brought its objects home.

It is very clear that this interpretation has the inestimable advantage over the one formerly suggested, that it penetrates into the heart of the matter and refuses to evacuate the text of its manifest purport. The text is given to enhance in our hearts the conception of the love of God to sinners: to make us to know somewhat of the height and depth and length and breadth of it, though truly it passes knowledge. It will not do, then, as we read it, to throw limitations around this love, as if it could not accomplish that whereto it is set.

Beyond all question, the love which is celebrated is the saving love of God; and the “world” which is declared to be the object of this love is a “world” that is not merely given an opportunity of salvation, but actually saved. As none but believers – or, if you choose to look at them sub specie aeternitatis, none but the elect – attain salvation, so it seems but an identical proposition to say that it is just the world of believers, or the world of the elect, that is embraced in the love of God here celebrated. When the text declares, therefore, that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son for it, is not what is meant, and what must be meant, just the elect scattered throughout the world?[5]

To conclude, I would exhort readers to take a closer look at the scripture passages that are offered up by Arminian apologists against the Reformed doctrines of grace, and really think about them to see if they say what Arminians really intend them to say. Unfortunately, the kind of responses offered by people such as Louis Ruggiero demonstrate a lack of either ability or willingness (or both) to really look at the issues in depth and see what the other side is really trying to say.

End Notes

  1. Ruggiero, Louis. Refuting the Tulip With the Fear of the LORD. King Messiah Project. <http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/calv_main.html>.
  2. Balz, Horst and Gerhard Schneider. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983. pp. 153-154.
  3. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion (Translated by Henry Beveridge). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008. pp. 13-14 (I:4:4).
  4. Calvin, John. Commentary on Acts – Volume 1 (Commentary on Acts 2:14-21). <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom36.ix.iii.html>.
  5. Warfield, Benjamin Breckenridge. God’s Immeasurable Love. Grace Covenant Church (OPC). <http://www.gcc-opc.org/docs/godslove.htm>.

Other related Aristophrenium articles: