Erwin Lutzer
Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer, after listing a series of verses, Exodus 4:21, Exodus 12:36, Psalm 105:25, Proverbs 21:2, Daniel 4:25, Amos 3:6, Acts 4:27-28, John 1:13, John 5:21, John 12:39-40, Acts 13:48, Romans 9:22-24, Ephesians 1:4, 2nd Thessalonians 2:13, writes: “Arminians, needless to say, are well aware of these passages of Scripture and doubtless have explanations for them.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.220, emphasis mine)
After doing the “Machine Gun Hermeneutic” (which is inappropriate to begin with), why did Calvinist Erwin Lutzer say “doubtless” that Arminians “have explanations for them”? Does he not know what those explanations are?
Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer, writes: “...we must define God’s love in accordance with the total teaching of Scripture, which includes the doctrine of election and God’s ultimate purpose for man.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.215, emphasis mine)
Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer, writes: “But does the Bible actually teach that Christ died only for the elect? Here are some of the passage used to show that Christ came for the specific purpose of payment a ransom only for those whom God had chosen: … Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock of God which He purchased with His own blood. (Acts 20:28)” (The Doctrines That Divide, pp.185-186, emphasis mine)
Lutzer explains: “If it is true that Christ died to redeem a specific number of people, namely those whom the Father had given him, it follows that all believers were redeemed at the cross two thousand years ago. They were cleared of all charges then, for God accepted the ransom payment. The certificate of our canceled debt was then given to us when we trusted in Christ. Paul said that the reason no one can bring a charge against the elect is that Christ has died for them (Rom. 8:24).” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.185, emphasis mine)
Lutzer writes: “Calvinists believe that election makes the success of God’s plan certain. God has committed himself to save a certain number, and they will be saved, despite the rebellion of mankind. The unbelief and failure of man can never thwart the intended plan of God.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.213, emphasis mine)
Lutzer writes: “If God from all eternity purposed to save one portion of the human race and not another, the purpose of the cross would be to redeem these chosen ones to himself. We can know whether we belong to that number.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.187, emphasis mine)
Lutzer explains: “The revealed will was that all men be saved, but the hidden will was that the greater part of mankind be damned.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.195, emphasis mine)
Lutzer continues: “Similarly, he desires that all men be saved. Yet, on the other hand, he allows the greater part of humanity to perish. We simply do not know why he has chosen to forego his desire to see all men saved.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.197, emphasis mine)
Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer, writes: “God’s choice of those who will be saved appears to be neither random nor arbitrary. He planned the context in which they would be converted. That is why I have never wondered whether my children are among the elect. Since they were born into a Christian home, we can believe that the means of their salvation will be the faithful teaching of God’s Word. God’s decision to save us involved planning where we would be born and the circumstances that would leads us to Christ. Election is part of a total picture.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.217, emphasis mine)
How does being “born into a Christian home” provide assurance that the children of such a home are going to be one of Calvinism’s “elect”? How could physical birth be the “means” of their salvation when yet instead, according to Calvinism, a unilateral, irresistible, preemptive spiritual new birth (i.e. Regeneration) is the means of belief? So every child born into a Calvinist home is going to be saved? Is that the take-away here, or is some other meaning intended? (One wonders how Lutzer would explain those who were born into Christian homes, but yet still ended up either never believing or losing their faith at the end of their lives?) Calvinists must ultimately believe that their deceased babies will go to Heaven because a special covenant of Election had covered them. I prefer the explanation here and here instead.
Luke Liechty comments: “What stood out to me most was Lutzer’s comments. It reeks heavily of the philosophy of the Jewish people who claimed salvation in Jesus’ day simply because they were children of Abraham. Physical birth has no implication as to salvific assurance. Influence in a positive sense, yes. Assurance, no. This also raises another question. If God is going to posit children in Christian homes so that they can be saved, we can essentially stop ALL evangelism because those not born in Christian homes must obviously not be objects of His love. And since they are not objects of His love, let them die in their sins for after all, God put them where they would not hear the Gospel.”
