Schreiner makes faith the difference maker

 One of the hardest things about reading Schreiner is that he is unclear. He says things in which seem and sound good; such as, "Yes, the verdict is effective: we really are in a right relationship with God since Christ is our righteousness and we are united to Christ by faith. We are truly right in God's sight by faith alone!"

I would not say that we are united to Christ by faith. But I would say that because we were united to Christ through his death, burial, and resurrection therefore we look upon him by faith. So when we say we are justified by faith we are really saying we are justified by Christ alone.

But then again, Schreiner says we are made right by faith alone, but then he'll say we need works to enter heaven. In some way works, according to him, is necessary for salvation. So Schreiner is always in a perpetual doubt.

Christianity is not conditional and ought nought to be confused as such

"But Christians must stop confusing Christianity with Arminianism, Romanism, and medievalism. A Christian society is one that grows out of the truths of the Bible alone, not from the melange of Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, and pagan superstition that characterized Europe for a millennium under the hegemony of Roman Church- State." - John W Robbins, Freedom And Capitalism, pg 183

The Love of God

Does God love every single human being?

The Arminian, and the Scholastics (whether Reformed so called or no) would say absolutely. They would definitely list out Scripture verses that seemingly supports this satanic idea. One such verse, is all together popular, is John 3:16.


It says that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son so that whosoever believes in Him shall not parish but have eternal life.


In this verse those who teach God loves every single human being who has, is, and will ever live on earth point out that the text says God so loved the world.

Now the problem with this interpretation of things is that it does not fit the context of the verse itself and of the whole Scripture. For instance, Romans 9 says God loved Jacob, but hated Esau.

They who holds that God loves every single human being (we will call them universalist) basically think that the term world means every individual. This however is not the case. The universalist has simply committed a fallacy. They say look here is the word world therefore this means this. The problem is that the term world in Scripture has several different meanings and none of them speak of every single human beings.

In fact, the term world can denote the universe, all creation including things. As God created the cosmos. He is ruler of it all the stars, the skies, the ocean.

It can also mean the gentile world as distinct from the Jewish world as Paul uses the term in Romans 11.

But since Scripture interprets Scripture we know ultimately God only loves those whom He has chosen in eternity past. Therefore, God so loved the world of the elect alone.

I would say that the Arminian is a lost heretic who denies the law and gospel distinction

"'In the second place,' Gerhard continues, 'when the doctrine of the Gospel is not separated from the Law by definite boundary-lines, the blessings of Christ are co considerably obscured.' By ascribing to man some share in his own salvation, we rob Christ of all His glory. God has created us without our cooperation, and He wants to save us the same way. We are to thank Him for having created us with a hope of life everlasting. Even so He alone wants to save us. We to him who says that he must contribute something towards his own salvation! He deprives Christ of His entire merit. For Jesus is called the Savior, not a helper towards salvation, such as preachers are. Jesus has achieved our entire salvation. That is why we are so determined in our Predestinarian Controversy. For the basic element in the controversy has been that we insisted on keeping Law and Gospel separate, while our opponents mingle the one with the other. When they hear from us this statement: 'Out of pure mercy, God has elected us to the praise of the glory of His grace; God vindicates for Himself exclusively the glory of saving us,' etc., they say: 'That is a horrible doctrine! If that were true, God would be partial. No, He must have beheld something in men that prompted Him to elect this or that particular man. When He beheld something good in a person, He elected him.' If that were so, man would really be the principal cause of his salvation. In that case man could say, 'Thank God, I have done my share towards being saved.' However, when we shall have arrived in our heavenly fatherland, this is what we shall say: 'If I had had my own way, I should never have found salvation; and even supposing I had found it by myself, I should have lost it again. Thou, O God, didst come and draw me to Thy Word, partly by tribulation, partly by anguish of heart, partly by sickness, ect. All these things Thou hast used as a means to bring me into heaven, while I was always striving for perdition.'" - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 40-41

Arminians deny the Gospel

Neither let any deceive your wisdoms, by affirming that they are differences of an inferior nature that are at this day agitated between the Arminians and the orthodox divines of the reformed church. Be pleased but to cast an eye on the following instances, and you will find them hewing at the very root of Christianity. Consider seriously their denying of that fundamental article of original sin. Is this but a small escape in theology? - why, what need of the gospel, what need of Christ himself, if our nature be nor guilty, depraved, corrupted? Neither are many of the rest of less importance. Surely these are not things, as Austin speaks, - "about which we may differ without loss of peace or charity." One church cannot wrap in her communion Austin and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius. I have here only given you a taste, whereby you may judge of the rest of their fruit, "mors in olla, mors in olla;" their doctrine of the final apostasy of the elect, of true believers, of a wavering hesitancy concerning our present grace and future glory, with divers others, I have wholly omitted: those I have produced are enough to make their abettors incapable of our church-communion. - John Owen, The Epistle Dedicatory in A Display of Arminianism, pg. 7

Reymond might be an Arminian

On Pg. 178 "By what they have said about his immutability, as a consequence of their understanding of God's eternality as involving timelessness, classical theists have sometimes portrayed God as One virtually frozen in timeless immobility or inactivity (this is one example of the theological mischief which accrues to the ascription of timelessness to God)." Who has said that God's immutability means that God is basically frozen in time?
"These theists correctly argue that since God is a perfect being, he is incapable of any ontological change, since any change must be either for the better or for the worse. He cannot change for the better since he is already perfect, and he cannot change for the worse since that would result in his becoming imperfect. The same holds true, it is incorrectly argued, with regard to any motion or activity on his part. Any movement must either improve his condition or detract from it. But neither is possible for a perfect Deity. Therefore, he remains in an 'eternally frozen pose' (Packer's characterization) as the impassible God. But this is not the biblical description of God." -It isn't, then what is?
"The God of Scripture is CONSTANTLY acting into and reacting to the human condition. In no sense is he metaphysically insulated or detached from, unconcerned with, or insensitive or indifferent to the condition of fallen men."
So God reacts to man's actions? WOW! There you have it Reymond is an Arminian at best, but according to the previous status he might be a humanist or atheist at worse.

Does Jesus have to say only for us to know that He only died for the elect alone?

Once debated some Arminians who, when quoted John 10 concerning Christ's effectual death on the cross limited to the elect alone, said that the passage at hand didn't say only.
John Gill responds: wer to this,


1. It is observed,[1] that “in none of these places it is said that Christ died only for his sheep, for hisfriends,or for his church;and, therefore, none of them say anything in contradiction to our assertion” of general redemption. I reply, this objection is much like... what the Papists make against the doctrine of justification by faith. They own the Scriptures say, that we are justified by faith, but not by faith only.Now it may with as much propriety be said, that other, besides those which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham, because the Scriptures do not say that they which be of faithonly are blessed with him, or that there are more gods and more mediators than one, because the text does not say, there is only one God, and only one Mediator; yea, it might be urged with equal strength, that men may love other women besides their own wives, in the same manner they love them, because it is not said, husbands love your wives only,as it may that Christ loved others, and gave himself for others, besides his church; because it is not said, he loved his church only and gave himself for his church only. But, though this restrictive word is not expressed, it is evidently implied; for, if Christ laid down his life, and gave himself for every individual man, these peculiar and discriminating characters would be utterly unnecessary. And, after all, it is owned by our opponents,[2] that “eventually Christ is the Savior of his body, and died only for his sheep and friends.”

2. The argument is retorted upon thus;[3] “He that died for his friends, and for his enemies, for the church of God, and for the unrighteous, that he might bring them to the church of God; for the sheep that heard his voice, and for the lost ones that did not hearken to his voice, died for all. But Christ died for his friends, etc., therefore he died for all.” The fallacy of this argument will easily appear, when it is observed, that they are, the same individual persons who are styled the enemies and friends of Christ, the unrighteous, and the church, the lost sheep, and such as hearken to Christ's voice; being the former as considered in their unregenerate estate, and the latter through the power of his grace upon them. - The Cause of God and Truth


My friend David Bishop also says,

In other words, the word "only" is unnecessary in view of the context; especially of verse 26. Shepherds shepherd sheep. They don't shepherd goats, cows, dogs and horses. Hence the title shep(sheep)herd. Therefore, He doesn't need to say the shepherd came to lay down his life ONLY for the sheep in order for his words to mean exactly that.

On Covenant Presbyterian Church in Fort Worth

I had the opportunity to attend an OPC church and it was interesting to say the least. There were three elders and one of the elders was the Pastor. The congregation seemed to have revered the pastor. The hymns were also interesting. They all sang a Charles Wesley hymn. After the service I asked the pastor several questions pertaining to Arminians and the Gospel. "Arminians are well intended" says the false pastor who also commingled the law and the gospel by saying that the gospel begins with bad news. Further notes pertaining to the sermon is can we not know the reason why Christ died and can we not know the glory of God in Christ? Overall this pastor and the church denies revelation and accepts idolatry as a form of worship.

Arminianism is the doctrine of demons

". . . The doctrines of the apostles were revived, and supernatural Theology once more lift up its head; the reformed churches published their confessions of faith, and many eminent men wrote common places, and systems of divinity; in which they all agreed in the main, to support the doctrines of revelation; as of the Trinity, and the Deity of the divine Persons in it; those of predestination and eternal election in Christ, of redemption by him, pardon of sin by his blood, and justification by his righteousness.
But Satan who envied the increasing light of the Gospel, soon began to bestir him-self, and to play his old game which he had done with so much success in the first ages of Christianity; having been for a long time otherwise engaged, to nurse up the man of sin, and to bring him to the height of his impiety and tyranny, and to support him in it: and now as his kingdom was like to be shook, if not subverted, by the doctrines of the Reformation; he, I say, goes to his old work again; and revives the Sabellian and Photinian errors, by the Socinians in Poland; and the Pelagian errors, by the Arminians and Remonstrants in Holland; the pernicious influence of which has been spread in other countries; and, indeed, has drawn a veil over the glory of the Reformation, and the doctrines of it." - John Gill, Introduction to the Body of Divinity, Pg. XXXiX

Those who hold to the Truth of God's free and sovereign grace found in the Gospel must not back down

"This temptation, of course, must be decisively rejected. Error cannot be fought with error but only with the truth. The Reformation faith has always been characterized by a refusal to become reactionary. It has never allowed heresy to drive it into the opposite error. It will not engage in theology or preach out of fear. Steadfastly, it insists on being biblical.
The outstanding example of this is the Synod of Dordt. The Reformed churches were confronted with the false doctrine of man's salvation of himself by his free will. Basic to this error was the teaching that the preaching of the gospel is God's gracious effort to save every man. The Reformed fathers viewed this error as a perversion of the gospel, the destruction of the Reformed churches, and the robbery of the glory of God in his greatest work, the work of salvation.
The vehemence of their opposition to the Arminian heresy might have led the fathers to react by slighting the importance of the preaching of the gospel and by denying the serious call of God to everyone to whom the gospel comes. But such was not at all the case." - David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, Pg. 181-182