This series is from the From the Editor’s Desk column of the Sword and Trumpet. The articles were co-authored by Paul Emerson and myself.
As we move toward the conclusion of this summary, it is the hope of the writers that the readers have gained added understanding of the Arminian/Calvinist controversy. Things are not always as simple as they seem when taken in historical perspective. What began as a necessary corrective by Arminius to the theological extremes of the Dutch state church in that day, became a divisive theological and philosophical war that continues to divide and polarize. Many are the casualties of this war. As we have stated, the extremes of both positions are Biblically wrong. The extreme Arminian position morphs into a theologically liberal humanism. The extreme Calvinist position morphs into fatalism. Both are contrary to the Gospel and pollute evangelism.
The writers of this series are comfortable with the theology of Arminius but not necessarily with that of his disciples. Thus, we try to avoid secondary labels and call ourselves Biblicists. We humbly accept everything the Bible clearly teaches even when we can’t harmonize all the truths with each other. We believe in the absolute sovereignty of God. He cannot be a victim of His creation. On the other hand, we believe in the free agency of man. Man will not be forced by God to do what he is unwilling to do. We further believe that a saved person can, by consistent long-term determination, apostasize to his eternal ruin.
If we must totally reconcile all the truths of Scripture with each other to the satisfaction of our human understanding, we must needs add to what the Scriptures say. This is what the theologians often do. It is dangerous and is Biblically forbidden. If we are still interested in the answers to these questions when we are face to face with our Lord, perhaps we can ask. We doubt, however, that we will have as much interest then “in the light of His Glory and Grace!”