Potentia Deo ad Destructionem

The Law of the Excluded Middle states that every proposition is either true or not true. ( P v ~ P )

Arminianism includes at least five theological expressions which were later countered by the five points of Calvinism. Below I define the five points of Arminianism in terms of the five points of Calvinism as the latter are more familiar than the former. The positive assertions at the beginnings of each statement are representative of Calvinism and the negatives at the ends of each statement are representative of Arminianism. Please notice that each statement is true by virtue of the law of excluded middle. One is logically forced to choose between one of the two positions provided by each statement. There is no third option for any of these statements.

Humanity is totally depraved or humanity is not totally depraved.

Election is unconditional or election is not unconditional (conditional).

The atonement is limited in extent or it is not limited (universal).

The grace of God is irresistible or it is not irresistible (resistible).

True believers will persevere or true believers will not persevere.

One is therefore obligated to adhere to a Calvinist or Arminian position with respect to each of these five soteriological considerations. When people assert that “the Bible teaches both” with respect to any one or more of the propositions above the consequence which follows is that the Bible contradicts itself. Likewise one cannot logically claim that neither of the two positions offered in each of the statements is taught by the Bible if the Bible says anything at all about the points above. Therefore views pretending to be “above and beyond” Calvinism and Arminianism are really based on ignorance. One is obligated to choose between one of two beliefs for each of the five points listed above. Please note that those who state that neither position on any of the points is knowable via Scripture differ pragmatically. For example it is common practice amongst those rejecting unconditional election and adhering instead to conditional election to say that we just cannot understand the doctrine of election. This is not a mark of humility as is often assumed but rather a refusal to come to a decision logically entailed by possessing a soteriology.

I have never quite understood why anyone would present the “argument” that “all” means “all”. Of course “all” means “all”! If someone were asked to define “all” and that person responded by saying that it means “all” that person would be correct, even if it was a circular definition. Tautologies are always true and words are essentially the same as themselves. “Cow” means “cow”, “book” means “book”, “pie” means “pie”, and “all” means “all”. It is really not very helpful to proudly repeat that “‘all’ means ‘all’” and it makes no sense to deny it.

The underlying issue at hand is what “all” means when defined in a non-circular fashion. Some hold that “all” refers to “every single entity without exception” every time it is used. Others would claim that the meaning of “all” is largely dependent upon its context. The latter contention is the more sensical and, for example, is necessary for interpretting Scripture. For example:

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. (Acts 1.1-2)

Luke recorded every single doing and teaching of Jesus while He was on earth without exception? If this is true, then what do we do with the verse immediately preceeding?

Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (John 21.25)

Another example:

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12.32)

Jesus is speaking here of His death by crucifixion, His death on the cross. (John 12.33) Does the cross really draw every single person who ever lived to Christ without exception? If so, then what do we do with passages which speak of the cross being a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks? (1 Corinthians 1.23) The cross is offensive, it does not draw every individual without exception.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1.18)

The term “all”, just like other terms, must draw its meaning from the context in which it appears. An understanding of the text and culture from which that text originates goes a long way toward resolving the apparent contraditions pointed out in the texts above and answers our questions regarding “all”.

What do you think?