For the past two thousand years, theologians of every pedigree have debated about the role of man and the role of God in the salvation process.  Is man a free agent who receives saving grace conditionally, or is God the free agent who grants saving grace to those He chooses unconditionally?  Did Jesus die for everyone or did He only die for the elect?  Can Christians commit apostasy and lose their salvation or are they preserved forever?  There are two primary schools of thought in this debate – Arminianism and Calvinism — and many shades in between.

Although I’m never keen on belonging to a “camp” labeled by a historic theologian’s name, I guess you can call me Baxterian, after the famous Puritan, Richard Baxter. Baxter held a mediate position. In his book, Catholick Theologie: Plain, Pure, Peaceable, for Pacification of the Dogmatical Word-warriours[i] (I love this title!), he interrogates hypothetical teachers on both sides of the debate, showing them just how close they could come to agreement in the middle ground.  This book is a masterpiece, though it’s hard to find online[ii].  My goal with this article is to review the main points of Calvinist and Arminian systems and then show Baxter’s mediating arguments to bridge the gap between these opposing theological positions.

Total Depravity (Calvinism) Vs. Total Depravity (Arminianism)

Interestingly, the first point I’m bringing up is something that Calvinists and Arminians agree on, well sort of.  Both agree that Adam and Eve’s rebellion brought mortality and moral depravity into the human race.  Both agree that the extent of the depravity is total:   Not “total” meaning everyone is as sinful as they can be, but “total” meaning that it corrupts every faculty of the person, rendering him/her unable to respond to God satisfactorily.  Below are some passages that both camps would advocate as promoting total depravity (ESV):

Gen 8:21 “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth…

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.

Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world … we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body  and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Rom 3:10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.

1 Cor 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Reading these passages, we can see that humanity’s situation is bleak.  Left to themselves, unbelievers do not do what is good, but instead succomb to the strong sinful impulses of the flesh.  But this leads to many questions:  Don’t the Bible and experience show us instances where unbelievers do “good” prior to receiving saving grace, such as heed some of God’s commands (e.g. you shall not kill, steal, etc), exhibit godly characteristics (e.g. kindness, gentleness, honesty), or even believe truths about the Gospel?  If so, how is that possible?  What enables them to do so?  Also, can such things, in any way, contribute to, act as means unto, or serve as conditions for receiving saving grace?  These questions are where the disagreement resides, which leads to the next point.

Irresistible Grace (Calvinism) Vs. Resistible Grace (Arminianism)

Traditional Calvinists claim that depraved, spiritually dead unbelievers are unable to respond to God in any salvific way without first being regenerated, or born again.  Without such a drastic renewal of their nature, they can’t repent or believe.  However, when God chooses to regenerate them with an influx of irresistible special grace, they are enabled to respond and do so.  Calvinists offer passages such as the following to plead their case:

John 3:3 …“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Acts 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.

Arminians disagree with the notion of complete inability.  They believe that God offers a sufficient prevenient grace which enables and persuades sinners to respond positively to God.  They claim that God would be unjust to command sinners to repent and believe, and offer them salvation on that basis, unless He has enabled them to do so.  Arminians offer many passages that document pre-salvific “good” responses to God.  For example, Cornelius, who was yet to be “saved” (Acts 11:14), was described as “A devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.” (Acts 10:2).  God, somehow pleased with Cornelius’s pre-salvific response, told him: “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.” (Acts 10:4).

In the Arminian framework, God draws all people to Himself to some degree (John 12:32).  He often persuades, convicts, and enlightens sinners over time to prepare them for a positive response to the Gospel.  Unbelievers receive increased grace based on their response to earlier grace – “For to the one who has, more will be given … but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away” (Mt 13:12).  The religious leaders of Jerusalem rejected God’s grace, even though it seemed to be genuinely offered to them (Mt 23:37). Due to their rejection of Christ’s message, further revelation was withheld from them (Mt 13:10-11). The disciples, on the other hand, exhibited child-like humility and thereby received further revelation (Mt 11:25).

The Common Grace Bridge

According to Richard Baxter, Calvinists aren’t as far from the Arminian notion of prevenient grace as they think.  Most Calvinists hold to the doctrine of “common grace.”  Theopedia defines it as:

The grace of God that is common to all humankind. It is “common” because its benefits are experienced by the whole human race without distinction between one person and another, believers or unbelievers.[iii]

Common grace gives man the providential benefits of nature (Mt 5:45), an inexcusable awareness of God as Creator (Rom 1:20), and an innate ability to restrain sinful actions and heed the conscience (Rom 2:14).  Common grace is what spurs humanity on to good works and religious affections.  Most Calvinists, however, maintain that common grace does not improve man’s unregenerate state, and therefore remains separate from God’s salvific purposes.  This is where Baxter challenges them.

Baxter pleaded with the hypothetical Calvinist to consider the fact that common grace can be part of God’s means to lead or prepare someone for special saving grace.  See the conversation below (where B is Baxter and C is Calvinist):

B.  Is there not such a thing as common Grace, distinct from, and short of true Regeneration or Sanctification?

C.  Yes, we are all agreed of that.

B.  Is there any Nation or People in the world that are not obliged by God to use some means towards their own Conversion and to forbear their Sin?

B.  Did not you confess that they that have not special Grace are bound to seek it in the use of certain means?

C.  “They are bound to do it, but they are not able.

B.  Did not you confess that they were able by common Grace to do the works of common Grace? and that in abundance of instances? What is common Grace for, if they can do nothing by it?

C.  “It is equal to nothing, for it is not acceptable to God.”

B.  Did not you confess that it is a preparation to special Grace, and may bring them nearer to the Kingdom of God?

C.  “But without Faith it is impossible to please God.”

B.  But there are several sorts of Faith, and several degrees of pleasing God. We grant that without special Faith is impossible so to please God, as to have Justification, Adoption, or any Title to Heaven, as the members of Christ have. But by a common Faith men come to be less displeasing to God than grosser Infidels and Rebels; and are more prepared for converting Grace. You know that this is the common Doctrine both of our practical and polemical Divines, as you may see in their Books, and the Synod of Dort.[iv]

According to Baxter, common grace is normatively used by God to prepare the sinner for special grace – to persuade, convict, humble, break the sinner. A sinner who rejects God’s lower help likely has God’s higher help withheld. They are “penally denied it, for not using that power and liberty which they had, to inferior preparatory Acts.”[v]  He argues that the sinner is entirely to blame for rejecting God’s common grace, thereby blocking the flow of further grace:

All men have true power to draw nearer Salvation, and do better than they do, though not immediately to do all that is necessary to Salvation.  And he that can do it if he will, and also hath power to will it, is said to have sufficient grace, which if he use not, the fault lie in his willfulness.[vi]

Cannot a man by common Grace know that he is a Sinner, and miserable by sin? and that he needeth Mercy and a Saviour … Cannot he think of his own sinful and miserable condition? yea and think how to get out of it and be saved?  … Can he not wish and desire that he had mercy and a Saviour, and so much Grace as to keep him from Hell, and so make him happy when he must go hence and can he not by some earnest prayers speak out these desires… Cannot a man by common Grace do all that which our Divines commonly say, an Hypocrite may do, or a half or almost Christian … Are not the best of these men, by common Grace, more prepared for Conversion than some others?  … what good did that Grace do them? and why should we write of the Souls preparation for Christ? and Christ told one, Thou art not far from the Kingdom of God… Doth God command all these men to use the means of their full Conversion and Salvation utterly in vain?[vii]

I agree with Baxter that common grace is the middle ground at which an Arminian and a Calvinist can reconcile ideas regarding grace and depravity.  

Common Grace and Faith

In addition to concerns over the relationship of free will to common grace, there are concerns about the relationship of common grace to faith. Does common grace grant the sinner the ability to believe in a saving way? Arminians would answer, “yes”. Calvinists would answer, “no”. For them, special effectual grace is required to produce saving faith, either directly (before regeneration) or as a byproduct of regeneration. Baxter argued that there are only, materially, varying degrees of faith. As the degree of natural faith increases there is a point at which one may be said to be a sincere believer. At which point common grace faith transitions to special grace faith seemed blurred in Baxter’s mind. In fact, he seemed to sympathize more with the Arminians, suggesting that saving faith is possible in the workings of common grace. Yet sinners willingly fail to use it and therefore need special grace:

The course of Gods Administrations, maketh it seem most probable, that some and many have such a meer sufficient Grace to believe and repent: For if Adam had such a Grace enabling him to have fulfilled the whole Law of Innocency, it seemeth proportionable that the Rector of the World give some such a Grace to fullfil the mediate Law of believing and repenting, who use it not.[ix]

Unconditional Election (Calvinism) Vs. Conditional Election (Arminianism)

After arguing that common grace has a link (even if coincidentally) with salvation, Baxter comes down to the true dividing point:  The Conditionality of Election.  Calvinists see the following passages, and others, as promoting God’s absolute unconditional freedom in choosing whom He wills for special grace and salvation:

Romans 9:18-19 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

Baxter is totally on board with this notion.  He agrees that God has the absolute freedom and the final say in choosing people for special grace. 

Unconditional Election and Common Grace

According to Baxter, God’s issuance of special irresistible grace is not entirely disconnected from common grace. In fact, God uses common grace as the normative bridge to special grace. Here Baxter (B) pleads again with the Calvinist (C):

C.  We differ here that they [Arminians] think that God hath promised saving Grace to men prepared by common Grace, and we say, No.

B.  Very good: Is all come but to this? Tell me what is this to the question of man’s power or impotency? This is only about God’s Word. Do you not believe that God hath made it the duty of all the Unregenerate, to desire, and beg, and seek his special regenerating Grace and use means to get it and avoid impediments?

C.  Yes: It is their duty; otherwise the omission of it were not their Sin.

B.  Hath God commanded them to do all this in vain?

C.  I told you that it is not in vain if he convert but some few of them

B.  My question was not whether the command be in vain but whether the duty commanded be in vain And how doth one man’s good use of common Grace prepare another man for conversion and not himself. It is for himself that God commandeth and earnestly exhorteth men to be reconciled unto God. And is this in vain to themselves if they do it? If they repent when commanded it is not in vain? If they use common Grace in seeking God how prove you that it shall be in vain? [x]

In Baxter’s scheme, God actively and unconditionally pursues two types of sinners:

• Those who build upon common grace – Though Baxter “assert[s] no such Promise”[xi] of God providing special grace to those who have favorably used preceding common grace, he argues that God normatively does so. Baxter invokes several scriptural evidences, such as Mt 7:8, Lam 3:25, Amos 5:4, and Lk 11:13 to show that those who seek normally find. This is not a conditional election, but rather a coincident election. God’s free election somehow coincides with the sinner’s free use of common grace. He elects a sinner foreseeing that they will respond to common grace, but not because He foresees them respond to that common grace.

• Those who don’t build upon common grace – Baxter argues that God normatively doesn’t save these people. But if He wanted to save “the worser sort of Sinners who have abused former mercies”[xii], He can still do so by infusing them with special grace, as in the case of Saul on the road to Damascus.  It’s entirely God’s free choice.  If God does not choose them for salvation, the responsibility falls entirely upon them for rejecting His free offer, and accompanying common grace.

Unconditional Election and Free Will

While Arminians hold to libertarian free will, or the ability of individuals to make choices freely, without being constrained by determinism, Calvinists claim that the sinner has a compatibilistic free will. Compatibilistic free will is the philosophical view that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent. This means that even if our actions are determined by God, we can still be considered free and accountable in the sense that our actions are the result of our own desires and intentions; from our own nature. The question is, where did our natures come from?

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, an agent-causation compatibilist, theorized that God brings agents into existence from a collection of “monads” created before the world. Each monad is a distinct, self-directing, causal agent that causes its own perceptions and appetites. Each is free from the influence of others, yet can be synchronized with others to produce an apparent cause and effect relationship. Though initially indeterminate, these monads can experience divine appetites directly from God’s special grace. God actualized these monads completely harmoniously with each other in a way that achieves his creative objectives for the best possible world.[xxi]

While Baxter may not have been a compatibilist in the Leibnizian sense, he argued for the coupling of both divine determinism and self-determinism, against the Dominicans of his day, who taught only divine determinism and divine premotion:

He that dare say that God Almighty who made all the World, is not Able to make a Creature that can determine his own will to this object rather than to that, under Divine Universal Influx, without Divine pre-determining pre-motion … is bolder against God than I shall be. And if God can do it, we have no reason to doubt whether it be done…

The grand Reasons why we cannot receive the Dominicans doctrine of predetermining premotion … it maketh God the sole-total-first-necessitating cause of all the sin that is committed in the world, or can be…

The Will as a finite dependent Creature, be a Power given and upheld by God of self-determining or morally specifying its own acts, without any necessitating Pre-determiner (Divine or humane.) Where note that all Divine Predetermination taketh not away that Liberty.   [xvi]

Unconditional Election and God’s Sovereign Decree

Given his above views on agent causation and self-determinism, Baxter advocates a robust view of God’s sovereignty without any notion of God willing or even decreeing sin. He proposed that God only decreed that which He intends on accomplishing directly; things which are good, just, and righteous. This could include “good” providential effects, holy judgments, and disciplinary measures that follow sin, but not the sin itself. Sin is not decreed by God but is foreknown as an eventuality, not a necessity. Consequently, God does not predestine the non-elect to condemnation but foreknew their rejection of His grace, leading to their unfitness for eternal life. This foreknowledge lies first in God’s attribute of omniscience, and secondarily in His intimate knowledge of the predictable nature of the pre-existent monads. It is not dependent on a causal chain of events or a noetic discovery from the created world. Baxter stated:

God fore-knoweth not evil Acts because he willeth them, or the futurity of them, nor because he decreeth to predetermine the will to the act in specie which is sin: But he willeth to effect that which is Good, and may so far know it.[xxii]

In election God is the cause of the means of salvation by his grace and of all that truly tendeth to procure it. But on the other side God is no cause of any sin which is the means and merit of damnation nor the cause of damnation but on the supposition of man’s sin. So that sin is foreseen in the person decreed to damnation but not caused seeing the decree must be denominated from the effect and object. But in election God decreeth to give us his grace and be the chief cause of all our holiness and doth not elect us to salvation on foresight that we will do his will or be sanctified by ourselves without him[xxiii]

Given the above points, I propose the following ordo salutis of the divine decree, which may align well with Baxter’s nuanced position:

A) DEFINE OBJECTIVE:  God determines His objectives in creating a universe in alignment with the demands of His own nature.

B) CREATE MONADS: God creates all monads that will ever exist, with divinely indeterminate, yet self-determined perceptions and appetites (i.e. natures).

C) DECREE GOOD: From every hypothetical possibility, God decrees the best possible sequence of materialization of the monads from (B), the world which optimally harmonizes with them, and His gracious influences that optimally harmonize with or modify them; all in alignment with the objectives and demands of (A). 

D) FOREKNOW EVIL: God foreknows all future sin only as a byproduct of His decree to materialize the agents in (C), who will originate sin from their own natures. 

E) CREATE UNIVERSE: God creates that which He decrees in (C).

This order provides the exhaustive “good divine determinism” that Baxter wanted to achieve, while excluding the notion of “evil divine determinism” that he was repulsed by. It includes some affinities with libertarian freedom (at the monad level), and with compatibilistic freedom (at the materialized level); the latter offering a substantive basis for foreknowledge. Finally, it retains the Calvinistic notion of God’s absolute sovereignty, and His unconstrained ability to introduce any amount of good He so desires beyond the sum total of evil appetites found in casual agents.

Limited Atonement (Calvinist) Vs. Unlimited Atonement  (Arminian)

One of the biggest questions when it comes to the atonement is:  Who did Christ die for?  Calvinists believe that the extent of the atonement is limited to the elect.  This follows from their belief that a penal substitutionary atonement must directly atone for specific sins of specific people.  Otherwise it didn’t atone for anything, but merely made atonement possible. Plus, a limited atonement integrates fairly well into the theology of unconditional election and irresistible grace, whereby God desires to save certain individuals and gives special grace exclusively to them.  Everything in the system seems limited to the elect.  Calvinists refer to verses, such as the following, which seem to limit the atonement to the elect:

John 17:9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

John 10:15 Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Of course, Arminians disagree. They believe that references to Christ dying for a subset do not preclude his death applying to the larger population.  Does Galatians 2:20 promote Christ dying only for Paul?  Of course not.  In the same way, Christ dying for the church or the sheep doesn’t preclude His death being applicable to unbelievers.  Arminians refer to the following verses to argue that Christ died for “all people”, for the whole “world”, even for false teachers who denied He bought them:

Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life… 17 that the world might be saved through him.

1 Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Tim 2:4 Who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth … 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

2 Pet 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

If one were to imagine God’s will along a linear timeline, advocates of unlimited atonement often distinguish between God’s antecedent and consequent wills. In His antecedent will, God “desires” the non-elect’s salvation, issuing commands and offering prevenient grace sufficient to save them. Yet, in His consequent will, He foreknows and permits their ultimate refusal to fully cooperate with the grace given.

Baxter resides in the middle ground. First of all, he emphasizes the sufficiency of the atonement, a notion that is common to all reformed positions.

Christ’s sacrifice for sin, and His perfect holiness, are so far satisfactory and meritorious for all men, as that they render Christ a meet object for that faith in him which is commanded men, and no man shall be damned for want of the satisfactoriness of Christ’s sacrifice, or for want of a savior to die for him … but only for the abusing and refusing of His mercy.[xxx]

Nevertheless, Baxter goes a step further to advocate a “multiple intention” atonement, which is unlimited in extent, yet has both primary and secondary intentions. This nuance is summed up in this statement:

He whose sufferings were primarily satisfaction for sin were secondarily meritorious of the means to bring men to the intended end that is of the word and Spirit by which Christ causeth sinners to believe so that faith is a fruit of the death of Christ in a remote or secondary sense. Christ died for all but not for all alike or equally that is he intended good to all but not an equal good with an equal intention[xxiv]

From this statement we see that Baxter believed that Christ died for all people, but not in the same way.  Of course, the atonement was intended to bring God’s elect through faith to a state of forgiveness.  But the means whereby this faith would spring, such as the Holy Spirit’s convicting presence and other common grace influences, were provided in some measure to the elect and non-elect alike. “There are certain internal motions and strivings of the Spirit of Christ … which irritate conscience to do its office; and which if men will but so far yield to as they can, have a tendency to their recovery” [xxv].  Given that the Holy Spirit came solely on the basis of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension (See Jn 16:7), we can thereby deduce that Christ’s death applies to the non-elect in some measure.

Baxter felt strongly that any extension of God’s forbearance towards humanity was accomplished by Christ on the cross (See 2 Pet 3:9).  He argues,

“The execution of the violated Law of Innocency is forborn to all men, in the greatest part; judgments kept off; and they kept out of Hell, while they have time and means to prepare for their salvation.”[xxvi]

“Usually God’s patience alloweth men time of Repentance, and taketh them not at the first denial, that they may consider and correct their former error”[xxvii]

Baxter’s argument is very logical.  Adam, our federal head, invoked God’s wrath against humanity.  The wages of such sin is immediate physical and eternal death (Rom  6:23).  Therefore, any delay of justice against humanity’s sin is a demonstration of mercy and grace which demands a worthy sacrifice by a worthy representative.  This worthy representative was Christ. As the second Adam, He brought an honorable sacrifice to God, appeasing the wrath that Adam invoked against humanity, making salvation possible for all and actual for the elect. Apart from Christ’s sacrifice, all prior instances of forbearance, including the entire Jewish sacrificial system, would have been unjust and entirely without basis (See Rom 3:25). His death, therefore, was not only for “that nation” (Jn 11:51), but also for the visible church—sanctified by “the blood of the covenant”(Heb 10:29)—as well as all nations who are sustained solely because of His forbearance accompanying the free offer of the Gospel. 

Accordingly, Baxter notes the following ideas related to this free offer:

• All men are commanded to believe, to seek salvation, to repent, to seek more mercy
• God seconds his Word with many providences to win men’s souls
• Jesus left a great example to the world which tends to men’s conviction and salvation
• God left many church ordinances which benefit more than just the elect
• Christians are obligated to do their best to save others
• Powerful reasons and persuasions are given to men in the Word in order to convince them
• Apostles and ministers were told to preach the Gospel to every creature, to all the world[xxviii]

Baxter also highlighted how Christ’s atonement defeated the devil (Col 2:15).  Even unbelievers directly benefit from Satan’s defeat, experiencing the restraint of his activity in society and in their individual lives.  “Christ’s conquest over the devil and world makes man’s conquest of them possible.”[xxix]

In summary, while Christ’s death was sufficient for the salvation of all, Baxter maintained that it was intended for the non-elect only in a limited sense—namely, to provide common grace, the grounds for divine forbearance, and the sincere, universal offer of the Gospel. The extent of the atonement included them, but its ultimate saving intent did not, being reserved only for the elect. Perhaps Baxter’s position is best encapsulated in Paul’s words:

1 Tim 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

Perseverance of all Saints (Calvinist) Vs. Non-Perseverance of some saints (Many Arminians)

The final idea I want to meddle with is the idea of security.  Are true believers secure for eternity?  Do they ever fall away from faith irreparably?  Or do they always persevere to the end?  There are many views on this, from the view that anyone who has an instance of positive belief in Christ is eternally secure no matter what they do or believe thereafter, to the other extreme where believers lose their salvation every time they sin!

Calvinists typically teach perseverance of the saints.  According to this doctrine, those who have a genuine faith will persevere to the end.  God providentially assures that He finishes what He started.  Some of the main verses they invoke to support this position are:

John 10:27 ​My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.28 ​I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.29 My Father, who has given them to me,  is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

Jn 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified

Php 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

1 John 3:6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him… 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s2  seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.

Calvinists claim that those who actually do fall away were never genuinely saved.  “But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 Jn 2:19).

Classical Arminians, on the other hand, typically teach that someone can lose their salvation (and some have done so), not by sinning, but rather by rejecting their faith altogether.  For them, only one mechanism controls both the entrance into and exit from salvation – faith; Faith in, faith out.  Of course it’s harder for Arminians to prove their case because the Bible speaks of a dead faith which isn’t saving faith at all (See James 2:14-17).  Verses that refer to believers no longer believing could easily refer to false believers, such as those referred to in Matthew 7:21-23 and 1 John 2:19.  Therefore, Arminians can’t prove their case using these types of verses.  Instead, the verses they focus on are those which mention the apostasy of people who once had characteristics that only saved people could have; characteristics including:

A prior cleansing of sin:

2 Pet 1:9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.

Redemption:

2 Pet 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

A prior knowledge of the Lord (i.e. salvific knowledge – see 2 Pet 1:3):

2 Pet 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

An effectual application of Christ’s blood:

Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

Participation in Spiritual enlightenment and power:

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Baxter responds to this dilemma by stressing God’s twofold will. According to God’s revealed will (i.e. His commands and warnings in scripture) it is possible to be unjustified. However, according to his decreed will this will never actually happen.  He argues,

God by commanding faith and repentance, and making them necessary conditions of Justification, and by commanding perseverance, and threatening the Justified and Sanctified with damnation if they fell away; and making perseverance a condition of Salvation, doth thereby provide a convenient means for the performance of his own Decree, of giving Faith and Repentance and perseverance to his Elect; For he effecteth his ends by suitable moral means; and such is this Law and Covenant, to provoke man to due fear, and care and obedience, that he may be wrought on as a man.[xxxi]

Here we see that Baxter taught a “Means of Perseverance” view of the warning passages.  In other words, it is possible for someone to fall away from the faith irreparably. However, God uses these very warning passages along with the indwelling Spirit’s convicting power to successfully guarantee that such an apostasy does not occur.  Believers can fall away, but they will not.  This would be akin to a parent warning her young child “don’t cross the street or you will get hit by a car”, and the child heeding that command and never getting hit by a car.  In that scenario, getting hit by a car is a real threat, but it doesn’t come to pass.

This view is a genius middle ground.  It allows both the Arminian and Calvinist proof-texts to say what they say.  Of course, there are still some verses which mention people actually (not hypothetically) falling away from faith (e.g. 1 Tim 1:19), but these could be examples of insincere faith as mentioned earlier.

Today, there are some Calvinist theologians moving toward this view of apostasy, such as Thomas Schreiner.   Schriener’s book, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance, is a must read.

Many Molinists, such as William Lane Craig, also hold to a similar view.  In Craig’s view, God consulted His middle knowledge to actualize a possible world in which no one “would” actually fall away.  As mentioned earlier, Baxter doesn’t see a need for middle knowledge, but is rather quite content with God being able to independently decree an apostasy-free world directly from a set of hypothetical suppositions within Himself, without the need for any conditional or counter-factual knowledge outside of Himself.  Nevertheless, the middle knowledge view bares semblance to Baxter’s view.

Conclusion

For the Christian who is struggling to find a middle ground in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, I highly recommend Richard Baxter’s Catholick Theologie.  Baxter was a man after God’s heart, and a man who desperately sought to unite those of opposing theological backgrounds.  May we be open minded, gentle, and humble as we ponder the middle ground he proposes.

End Notes:

[i] Richard Baxter’s Catholick Theologie: Plain, Pure, Peaceable, for Pacification of the Dogmatical Word-warriours.  1675.  Published by Robert White.  The University of Michigan.  Digitized Oct 28, 2009

[ii] I found it at these two locations online —  https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A26883.0001.001?view=toc https://books.google.com/books?id=dbnmAAAAMAAJ

[iii] https://www.theopedia.com/common-grace

[iv] Baxter.  Of Natural Corruption and Impotency, Pg 117.

[v] Ibid. Pg 125.

[vi] Baxer. On Sufficient and Effectual Grace, Pg 146.

[vii] Baxter.  Of natural Corruption and Impotency, and Free Will.  Pg 114.

[viii] Ibid. Pg 124.

[ix] Ibid. Pg 125.

[x] Ibid. Pg 115-116.

[xi] Ibid. Pg 118. Although he doesn’t understand the problem Calvinists have with the idea “that God should make any Promise of further Mercy, to the obedient use of former Mercy, when it is so agreeable to his Rectorship and Bounty, and to the common interest of Mankind.”

[xii] Baxter, Of Predestination.  Pg 13.

[xiii] Baxter. On Sufficient and Effectual Grace, Pg 155.

[xiv] Baxter.  Of natural Corruption and Impotency, and Free Will.  Pg 114.

[xv] Baxter.  Of natural Corruption and Impotency, and Free Will.  Pg 120, Pg 113.

[xvi] Baxter. Of Predestination and Free-will. Pg 162, 163, 173, 187, 184, 191

[xvii] Baxter. Of Scientia Media. Pg 42.

[xviii] Ibid. Pg 43.

[xix] Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 3:  Divine Essence and Atributes, Pg 420.

[xx] Baxter. More of Gods Fore-knowledge, and of Permission of Sin. Pg 26.

Next two quotes are from SECT. V. Of Futurity and its pretended Causes.

[xxi] Sources for Leibniz:

http://www.britannica.com,

Monadology – Wikipedia

Feb 15, 2005 plato.stanford.edu › entries › leibniz… Leibniz on Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

https://iep.utm.edu/leib-cau/Leibniz’s account of causation

[xxii] Ibid. Pg 44.

[xxiii] Baxter. End of Controversies.  Pg 162.

[xxiv] Baxter.  Of Redemption.  The Fifth Crimination. Pg 69.

[xxv] Baxter.  Of Universal Redemption.  Pg 51-52.

[xxvi] Ibid.

[xxvii] Ibid.

[xxviii] Ibid.

[xxix] Ibid.

[xxx] Ibid.

[xxxi] Baxter. The Antecedent and Consequent Will of God.  Pg 54.