Divine Sovereignty And Human Responsibility In Salvation -- By: Jack Fish

Journal: Emmaus Journal
Volume: EMJ 15:2 (Winter 2006)
Article: Divine Sovereignty And Human Responsibility In Salvation
Author: Jack Fish


Divine Sovereignty And Human Responsibility In Salvation

Jack Fish

An Editorial

The last issue of The Emmaus Journal contained an article by Mark Stevenson which critiques Dave Hunt’s book What Love is This: Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God.1 Stevenson’s article is not a defense of Calvinism. Rather, it is the criticism of a book which misrepresents what Calvinism teaches. I do not know of anyone who would subscribe to the theology that Hunt is attacking. Roger Nicole, in an article which appeared in The Emmaus Journal entitled “Polemic Theology: How to Deal with Those Who Differ from Us!” stated that we are required as Christians (1) to understand and represent another’s position clearly and accurately and (2) to present our own position in a spirit of love and winsomeness.2

In the history of the church Calvinism has been a divisive issue. Because Dave Hunt is a popular author and his book has been widely circulated, he has, in effect, defined Calvinism for many. I do not deny that there are real and important differences between Calvinists and Arminians, but there are many Calvinists and evangelical Arminians today who agree on essential areas of the gospel. They love the Lord. They believe in the sinfulness and lostness of all men. They believe that salvation is in Christ alone and in his atoning death. They believe that salvation is a gracious work of God that comes only to those who trust in Christ as their personal savior. They preach the same gospel. Calvinists and Arminians can work together in the common cause of Christ. What I do not want is for Christians to reject each other and divide when it is not necessary.

During the thirty-eight years I have been teaching at Emmaus, we have had a spectrum of viewpoints on this issue. When I first came to Emmaus, we had faculty members such as Bill Anderson, Don Cole, and Dick St. Marie who were

more Arminian in their viewpoint. We also had John Harper and John Smart, the president and one of the founders of Emmaus, who were more Calvinistic. Bill MacDonald, a former president of Emmaus, also presents in his Believer’s Bible Commentary what is essentially a Calvinistic position.3 Of these men, those who were more Arminian did not hold to all of the five points of Arminianism. They did teach the eternal security of the believer’s salvation. Neither did those who were more Calvinist teach all five points of TULIP. They taught that Christ died for the sins of all men (an unlimited atone...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()