The critical question that every Christian must be able to answer is “How are people saved?” In the seminary context, the doctrine of salvation (soteriology) is a central feature in the curriculum. Preachers can’t preach a message of salvation if they don’t understand it themselves.
Of course, as an institution that bases its theology on the Reformation (the term “Reformed” is in our name!), Reformed Theological Seminary is committed to the doctrines of grace–the idea that people are sinners who cannot save themselves but desperately need God to save them. On a popular level, this is simply known as Calvinism.
But, of course, not all Christians agree with this Reformed perspective. Throughout the history of the church, there are have been many different perspectives on how a person is saved. So, what is the best way to help Christians understand these various approaches? And what is the most effective way to make the case for Calvinism?
There are many answers to these questions, but there is one resource that I have found tremendously helpful. And it is a resource that is often overlooked and forgotten. And that resource is the five lectures delivered by B.B. Warfield in 1914 at Princeton Theological Seminary.
These lectures are not found in the standard 10 volume collected works of Warfield–and for that reason are often missed. Instead they are found in a little book entitled The Plan of Salvation (Simpson Publishing, 1989).
What makes Warfield’s approach so helpful is that he takes the reader through a series of choices about how God saves–starting with very broad concepts and moving towards more specific concepts. At each point along the way he eliminates the options that just don’t work. Thus, the reader is able to see how theologians have arrived at a belief in Calvinism in a gradual, step by step fashion.
In a sense, Warfield has created a logical “decision tree” that any Christian could follow. Thus, it is an incredibly useful tool for convincing people of the Reformed approach.
Of course, I cannot reproduce Warfield’s entire argument in this blog post. But, here is the outline of his decision tree:
1. Deism vs. Theism: Is God personally involved in our lives (Theism) or does he stand back from the universe and allow it to take its course (Deism)?
Warfield’s answer: Theism.
2. Supernaturalism vs. Naturalism: Given the reality of Theism, the next question is whether man saves himself and works his way to God (Naturalism) or whether God intervenes and saves man (Supernaturalism).
Warfield’s answer: Supernaturalism.
3. Evangelicalism vs. Sacerdotalism: Given the reality of Supernaturalism, the next question is the specific manner in which God saves. Does God save men through an instrument he has appointed like the sacraments (Sacerdotalism) or does he act on people’s souls directly and immediately (Evangelicalism)? Does God use sacraments as an intermediary or he does God operate directly on the human soul by grace?
Warfield’s answer: Evangelicalism.
4. Universalism vs. Particularism: Given the reality of Evangelicalism–that God works on men’s souls directly–the next question is whether he exerts this saving power equally on all men. Does he apply this saving power on every person, whether they or saved or not (Universalism), or does he apply it to particular individuals who are actually saved (Particularism)? Does God’s grace just make salvation a possibility or does it actually make salvation a reality?
Warfield’s answer: Particularism (Calvinism).
The logic and flow of Warfield’s argument are powerful and weighty. He builds such momentum towards Particularism (Calvinism), that even at an early point in the book the reader gets the sense that it is an inevitability. All the biblical and theological arrows are pointing in the same direction.
If you are looking for a persuasive tool for others, or even for yourself, check out Warfield’s little book.
MikeB (@g1antfan) says
Those who don’t hold to Reformed/Calvinist views would arrive at #4 in the tree agreeing with Theism, Supernaturalism, and Evangelicalism. God is personally involved in our lives and intervenes to save man by operating directly on the human soul by grace.
At to #4 in the tree it seems that the real question a theologian ought to ask is this: does God desire all people to be saved or does God desire to save only some people.
If the former, than Arminianism and the grace applied is resistible
If the latter, than Calvinism and the grace applied is irresistible
Alan says
I think the better question would be: does Christ’s death save men or make men savable? If the former, then Calvinism and effectual calling. If the latter, then Arminianism and prevenient.
Brian Small says
Arminians also believe “the idea that people are sinners who cannot save themselves but desperately need God to save them.” This is not a strictly Calvinist idea.
anaquaduck says
I think when you compare the teachings of Arminianism & the response of Calvinism in the historical unfolding Calvinism gives ‘all’ the glory to God the Father, Son & Holy Spirit but as a general ‘idea’ both Arminiianism & Calvinism would hold to the Apostles Creed.
Brian Small says
Well, we’ll have to disagree on this. In my opinion Calvinism takes away from God’s glory because it believes that God predestines some for hell.
anaquaduck says
Never the less Particularism/Calvinism still gives God the glory for our wonderful salvation. Rom 9:6-25.
Peter says
will God not be glorified in the demonstration of His perfect justice? Rev. 14: 9-11
DRCongo2 says
Brian, is God glorified in the redemption as well as the destruction of men? What about Pharoah, Esau and Judas? The problem is man so desperately wants a free will. Truth is he cannot be totally free. There is only one who is free and that is God. Nothing influences him outside of Himself.
The question is do you believe God would be just if he never sent the Son and all men went to hell?
What about Satan? He began with one sin and has no chance for redemption. No one has a problem with that.
Brian Small says
Naturally, you have missed the point of my post. It is not the fact that God sends people to hell that bothers me. Yes, all men are deserving of hell, but if God predetermines who will be saved and who will be lost without anyone ever having the chance of making a choice to receive or reject God’s offer of salvation, then this makes God out to be unjust. So, it is not a question of whether humanity has free will or not, to me the logical consequences of Calvinism is that it impugns God’s justice. Moreover, it impugns God’s love because God only loves the elect and not the non-elect. Also, if nothing influences God outside of himself, then logically this strips out any purpose for prayer. Why pray if God has already predetermined everything anyway? I could go on, but I am sure we will not convince each other anyway. Which of course highlights another absurdity of Calvinism. If God has predetermined everything that is going to happen, why even try to persuade someone else of your view? God has already predetermined me to believe in an Arminian understanding of God’s salvation. So, why try to persuade me? Blessings.
Chip says
For the Arminian, why pray for someone’s salvation? Why evangelise? Isn’t God doing everything he can to save everyone? Will my efforts to reach the sinner help God where he is lacking? It is so sad that God’s sovereign power is thwarted by the mighty free will of his creatures.
Why are the fragile sensibilities of the arminian scandalised by the idea of God “not giving someone a chance to accept or reject salvation”? By what right do you suppose that the wicked deserve such a chance? Unjust! you say. Nay- the rebel sinner deserves death and wrath, not mercy and grace.
“See, the enemy is puffed up; his desires are not upright—” Hab 2:4
That is a description of me, an enemy of God, and my desires are twisted. I neither seek nor want God’s companionship. That is my nature in Adam.
Until I am born from above, I *can not* see or enter the kingdom of God. (Jn 3) If God deigns to open my ears to hear, open my eyes to see, open my mind to apprehend his glory, and soften my heart to repent of my sin, is that being unjust to me? No!
Can a compelled redemption be a gift?
NoLongerBlind says
Brian,
Your defense of your “Arminian” belief, that it preserves the Justice of God, sounds very similar to Paul’s anticipated objection in Romans 9:14-24, which begins with:
“What shall we say, then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!”
Ben says
I think I understand the decision tree, but given the above how do we come to see that Particularism is inevitable? ie. Why is Universalism (as understood above and as opposed to the popular definition where everyone will ultimately be saved) not an option?
Oli says
Warfield’s third dichotomy (evangelicalism or sacerdotalism) strikes me as too simple. What about Peter’s statement that “baptism now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21)?
Brian Collins says
Note the qualifications that Peter immediately adds to that statement, “not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience.” Peter immediately qualifies that it is not immersion in water that saves. Thus, far from affirming that water baptism saves, this verse actually repudiates this idea. It is not water baptism that saves, it is the appeal to God for a good conscience, which occurred with baptism, that saved on the basis of Christ’s resurrection power.
dantespencer says
Peter had just pointed to the flood as typological of judgment and then makes the typological correspondence to our water baptism. Baptism is a sign of our salvation but is not the means of our salvation. Peter’s point here about baptism is that it is the sign of both our cleansing and, because we are identified with the people of God, our baptism signifies to us that the world will judge (persecute) us as it persecuted Noah. The main theme of 1 Peter is the persecution of the godly.
Oli says
WSC Q91: How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation? A: The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.
DRCongo2 says
By faith one receives the Christ.
MikeB (@g1antfan) says
Alan
I thought Calvinists were divided over Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement
John says
Dr. Kruger, I have the full text of this available for free on Monergism.com
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_plan.html
John says
It is also available as a FREE eBook in both ePub and .mobi formats:
http://www.monergism.com/plan-salvation-ebook
Chris Stewart says
Thank you for this resource. While it’s true the Armenian says he does not believe he can save himself his thinking is that he MUST do something to help God save him as he is not completely dead in trespasses and sins and retains some good. (None that seeketh after God, none is good)
MikeB (@g1antfan) says
Chris
While there are many reasons Non-Calvinists accept a synergistic model of soteriology, the thinking (at least in Arminianism) is not based on the idea that I MUST do something to help God save me. It (in part) reflects on the texts that say faith is an active verb and is the condition by which one may receive the benefits of Christ’s death. It also incorporates texts that say God wants all to be saved yet not all will be.
Nor does the Arminian (Classical or Wesleyan) accept that man is not “completely dead” or that he “retains some good”. That is inaccurate. Arminians accept the T in TULIP. The grace by which God personally operates on people so they can be saved is resistible and prevenient grace. It is the means by which God enables a faith response to the gospel.
Mike
Brian Small says
Well, I don’t know about the Armenians – I’ve never studied their beliefs – but Arminians do not believe they need to do something to help God save themselves. God offers the free gift of salvation. We either accept it or reject it by God’s grace.
anaquaduck says
Brian, regarding your post above(which is not so logical & has no reply option)
Why pray, why evangelise, why calvinism etc..because although God is sovereign & none can thwart His will, He still calls us into a relationship, He still calls us to obedience. The Holy Spirit is instrumental in redemption & sanctification. One doctrine does not deny or rule over the others, they are harmonious, one mountain, many peaks.
What you probably believe regarding conversion is that it was your own reasoning or goodness that recognised your need for salvation, where as the Calvinist says even there we were totally blind & uninterested in God with our hearts of stone until He began the work of regeneration.
In all of this God’s church is the instument in the gospel call, Salvation full & free in Christ, even before the foundations of the earth were put in place.God began the good work & God will finish it, despite our failings & sinful hearts, His grace will lead Home.
NoLongerBlind says
Chris
I know a very dear, totally-reformed Brother from Armenia who does not appreciate your associating him and his fellow, regenerate countrymen, many of whom also believe in God’s sovereignty in salvation, with the Arminian perspective.
Just sayin’……….
Dan Trabue says
As a progressive anabaptist who finds Calvinism (in parts, in its specifics, if not its broad overview) to be too simplistic and troubling from a moral, rational, biblical and Christ-ian point of view, I can nonetheless affirm these four steps (with perhaps some caveats). I don’t know that these four questions insist upon Calvinism.
For what it’s worth.
~Dan Trabue
Tony says
The options in #3 are not mutually exclusive. This Protestant habit of creating false dichotomies, insisting on “either/or” when “both/and” would apply, has had a plainly visible effect: 500 years of schisms, divisions & fragmentation among Christians–over whom Christ prayed for unity.
Roger Morton says
Very well stated.
If we accept that the creator is more complex than His creation, and recognize that understanding His creation requires hundreds of specialties (61 in medicine alone) spending years of graduate and postgraduate study; then to limit God to a few “either/ors” seems very wrong.
Just as cars which today are internally much more complex than most of us fully understand, have a greatly simplified interface of steering wheel, gauges and knobs that we use to drive them, so God provides us an interface through God – the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and a user manual through the Bible.
However just as with a car His user interface and His internal functioning are very different.
anaquaduck says
In truth though,schisms,divisions & fragmentations were around long before Calvinism responded to the 5 points of the followers of Arminius. They existed in the OT church & the early church also & unity at the expense of truth is not unity at all or unity for unity’s sake, not necesarily for the Christ of the Scriptures, hence division is or can be just as spiritual as peace if not more.
In this sense you create a false dictowhatevery to ‘prove’ your argument.
(In response to Roger)There are a lot of cars out there that are fake or have been chopped or customised… in this sense they do not stick to the original plan or intent of the maker & are easily recognised as such. History buffs will know the specs & ins & outs, nuts & bolts etc while the average person may be fooled regarding replica’s…food for thought maybe.
John says
We cannot ascribe our repenting and believing to our own wisdom, humility, sound judgment or good sense, but to Christ alone. We believe because he has opened our eyes, ears and heart to the gospel. (Deut 29:4, 30:6) Arminian prevenenient grace actually begs the question – if two persons receive the same prevenient grace, why does one man believe the gospel and not the other? What makes them to differ? It is obviously not grace which makes them to differ since both had grace so all that is left is some native good will or inclination that the other did not have. Where does wisdom or humility come from. Who makes he will good? No man is naturally willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. Jesus says, “the Spirit quickens, the flesh counts for nothing…that is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me grants it.” (John 6:63, 54). and just before this Jesus also declares “All that the Father gives me will come to me” )John 6:37)
So together in the texts Jesus says no one can come to faith in Him unless granted by the father through the quickening work of the Spirit AND all whom he so grants will come. It leaves no room for the Arminian view. Why is this? God commands all people to repent and believe the gospel. This is true… and its in the Bible … but apart from grace NO ONE responds positively… left to themselves all people turn aside from the true God. (See Rom 2, 3; and 1 Cor 2:14) And “No one can say “Jesus is Lord” apart from the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3).
“…by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.” 1 Cor 1:30-31
Angelo says
I would say, given the history of multiple interpretations of biblical passages and of all the divisions within Christianity, it’s hard to make sweeping statements like “it leaves no room for the Arminian view”. The Good Samaritan was justified by his good works only, it’s impossible to say he did not have a little good in him. Also the parable of the sheep and the goats seems to imply the sheep had some good in them, as all they did was to give food and drink to the needy. All I’m saying is that we should never pretend that our own interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one, as this would be impugning bad faith to those who disagree with us.
Roger says
Angelo – well stated. When we criticize others we disobey Jesus command to not oppose other followers of Jesus. Mk 9:38-40.
Furthermore while Catholics have maintained at 23% of US population the white protestant church has dropped by 20% of US population since the 1990. That’s 63.4 million US followers less than we would have had if we had maintained our legacy. We certainly need to get back to following Jesus.
anaquaduck says
I thought the good samaitin was about how you love, or who is your neigbour, not how Salvation is accomplished.
I dont think it is about pretending at all, it is about conviction & summary. The Bible also makes it clear that there will bebe disagreement & that doctrine is important.
David Bennett says
I think John and Charles Wesley would have agreed with that summary of Warfield’s book.
MikeB (@g1antfan) says
John
We believe because he has opened our eyes, ears and heart to the gospel
a statement both Calvinists and Arminians would both agree with.
if two persons receive the same prevenient grace, why does one man believe the gospel and not the other? What makes them to differ?
That’s just it. God governs people who can make choices. To bring this back to the natural man is missing the point of what PG does. It is the work of the Spirit in a person. It Illuminates. Draws. Enables. Yet it still leaves man with his ability to choose. “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live” (Deut 30:19).
If monergism focuses on salvation being of God alone such that man plays no role then in what way is this a personal relationship. And in what way does the statement in WCF that “no violence” is done to the FW of man come into play?
Why does God express His desire and will is for all to be saved yet not all are saved?