It was to be expected that there would be a response to my article "Are All Arminians Unsaved?"  My article critiques a position held by a particularly vitriolic group of "sovereign-gracers"[1], who claim that (1) the doctrine of "Efficacious Atonement" (i.e. Particular Redemption) is the gospel we must believe to be saved, therefore, (2) no Arminian is a true believer, and furthermore, (3) if you "speak peace" to an Arminian (i.e. tell the Arminian he is saved) you have denied the gospel, and this is proof that you, too, are unsaved.

One such response has been written by Mr. Jeremy Tavares, and is posted on the "Outside the Camp" website (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/review81(1).htm).  One of his criticisms is that my article was too lengthy, and with this I concur.  In contrast, it is my purpose to be brief in this present response.

He also said that one of my criticisms was unfair:  When I wrote the article, the website included a brief (six-point) "Confession" claiming that anyone is unsaved who says that an Arminian is saved.  I responded to this claim by saying that it displaces Christ as the object of faith, because it makes saving faith to be conditioned on taking a particular position on the unsaved status of Arminians.  As he correctly pointed out, every true Christian would deny that Moslems are saved, but that this does not imply that the object of saving faith is our opinion of Moslems.  However, I don't know of any body of Christians that includes an article in their confessional standards that discusses Moslems.  If "Outside the Camp" defines itself in terms of how we should think of Arminians, then I believe my criticism was justified.
 

Misunderstandings.
Some of his criticisms apparently reflect a misunderstanding of certain of my statements. Although I labored to be clear, I fear that I did not always succeed.

One such instance is my statement:

Is faith the evidence that God has already saved you or is it a prerequisite condition to receiving justification? The Biblical Gospel presentations do not clarify the role of faith adequately to answer this question.

Also, Mr. Tavares objects to my saying that God is not a tyrant.  It seems that he and I have a different definition of the word.  To me a tyrant is one who is unjustly cruel in asserting his will on others.  I would never ascribe injustice to God.  Mr. Tavares suggests that perhaps I believe in a "democratic God".  I certainly do not, but I do believe in a God who is both sovereign and just, and therefore not a tyrant.
 

The Bare Minimum of What We Must Believe.
Mr. Tavares offers the following criticism:

To Mr. Cervinka, the fact that all men are sinners, the fact that Jesus Christ has fully paid for the sins of everyone who trusts in Him, the fact that the Law cannot save, the fact that one's good works cannot contribute in any way to one's standing before God, are "beyond the bare minimum of what must be believed"!

What is essential in saving faith is not what the individual thinks about all the other people in the world, but how he views himself in relation to God.  Hence, it is essential that the sinner understand that he himself is a ruined sinner, condemned by God.  It is not essential that he view everyone else around him as sinners also.  It is essential that He believes that, by faith, he partakes of the pardon purchased by Christ on the Cross.  It is not essential to salvation that he should have a view regarding the cross in its relation to anyone else.  It is essential that he trusts wholly in Christ for the forgiveness of sins.  As long as his focus is on Christ to the exclusion of good works and the Law, then he has no need to be consciously thinking about the poverty of such things to save him.

It was never my intention to suggest that a person could safely deny these points, but only that he could be saved without consciously thinking about them.  To adapt Mr. Tavares' illustration:  A true Christian could never affirm that Moslems are saved, but that doesn't mean a true Christian needs to know what a Moslem is in order to be saved.
 

"Difficult to Believe".
Mr. Tavares criticizes me for not being absolute in my condemnation of those Arminians who would utter such blasphemies as "God is a failure, because, despite His best efforts, many nevertheless go to hell."  I said it was "difficult to believe" that such a person could be saved.  Why did I not say absolutely that such a person is assuredly unsaved?

It is for the same reason that we cannot conclude that Peter was unregenerate when He denied Christ.  Is not confessing Christ a primary evidence of salvation?  Yet, Peter was a regenerate man when he disowned Christ, not once, but three times.  The second time was with an oath—affirming absolutely that he did not know Christ.  The third time was with cursing—calling on God to send judgment upon him if he was lying (Matthew 26:69-75).  If Peter's thrice denial of Christ was not proof of his being unsaved, then how can we be so absolutely certain that an Arminian who calls God a failure is unsaved?

Or, take the case of David.  David was a man after God's heart.  David wrote Psalms praising God's Law.  Yet, David horribly violated that very Law, first by committing adultery with Bathsheba, then by seeking to cover up his sin by deceit.  When that failed, he arranged to have Uriah murdered to conceal the adultery.  He then persisted in his deceit for several months until Nathan confronted him with his sin.  David's eventual repentance was proof of his salvation.  However, until he repented, he was reasoning like an unbeliever, denying in thought and deed God's sovereignty, omniscience and holiness.  David's hypocrisy rivaled that of the Pharisees, yet David was a true believer!

Peter persisted in his denial of Christ for several hours until he was rebuked by a rooster who reminded him of Christ's words to him.  Three times that evening, Peter was confronted by people who recognized him as a disciple who had been with Christ, and each time he denied it.  Therefore, we should not expect every confrontation of a sin to bring the sinning believer to repentance from his error.  Like Peter, an Arminian may respond to numerous rebukes without repenting before God is pleased to grant repentance.

The bottom line is this:  A true believer is capable of sinning horribly against God.  Peter and David are two very graphic examples of this.  Both men denied God emphatically in word and deed, and persisted in their sin for a time.  By the gravity of their sins and their persistence in them, if not for the express testimony of scripture affirming their salvation, we would have concluded they were surely unregenerate men.  Yet, Scripture affirms that both men had experienced the grace of regeneration.  God knows the human heart, but man looks on the outward appearance, which can be deceptive.
 

The Identity of the Gospel.
The issue that divides Mr. Tavares and myself is the identity of the gospel.  What is it that a regenerate person must believe?  He claims that the Gospel we must believe in order to be saved are the doctrines of Calvinism[2].  I disagree.  There is nothing in scripture to support such a claim.

Based on what scripture plainly teaches, I conclude that the Gospel we must believe is the truth that Christ has died for sinners and that every sinner who trusts in Christ receives forgiveness.  My understanding of the identity of the Gospel is consistent with the doctrines of Calvinism, but not nearly so extensive in its scope.

The way to settle this matter is to see what it is that Scripture identifies as the Gospel we must believe.  This is why I appeal to the evangelistic encounters in Scripture, to see what was preached as a requirement for salvation, and what, in turn, people were said to have believed, when they were regenerated.

In no case did Christ or the apostles ever declare that a person must believe a distinctively Calvinistic teaching in order to be saved.  They did not preach "Believe that you are totally depraved, and unable to come to Christ, and you will be saved."  They did not preach "Believe that God has unconditionally chosen certain sinners to be saved, and you will be saved."  They did not preach "Believe that Christ died for the elect only, and you will be saved."  They did not preach "Believe that God sovereignly regenerates whomever He pleases, and you will be saved."  They certainly did not preach "You must believe all these things, or else you are unregenerate."

What they did preach was "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" and "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life" and "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" and "... through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses."

The issue in all these passages is faith in Christ as Lord and sin-bearer, and the promise given is that everyone who believes in Him receives the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.  Nowhere in these, or any other passages, do we read that the object of saving faith is one or more distinctively Calvinistic doctrines.
 

The Thief on the Cross and the Philippian Jailer.
Mr. Tavares therefore begs the question when he says that the thief on the cross must have been "certain of God's sovereignty", arguing that "The rest of Scripture makes it clear that the only way the thief could be in Paradise with Christ would have been for him to be regenerated, and all who are regenerated believe the Gospel."  The "rest of Scripture" never says that Calvinism is the Gospel.  It is a fundamental presupposition in Mr. Tavares' theology—that Calvinism is the Gospel we must believe to be saved—but not a fact that can anywhere be documented from Scripture.

The Philippian jailer asked "What must I do to be saved?" and Paul and Silas immediately answered "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved".  What is Mr. Tavares' response to this?

And Paul and Silas did not merely say, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household"; they also "spoke the Word of the Lord to him, and [to] all those in his house" (Acts 16:31-32)! They preached the Gospel to them!

Unquestionably, they preached "the Gospel" to the jailer.  But this does not establish the identity of "the Gospel" that they preached to him.  Again, we must adopt Mr. Tavares' presupposition that "Calvinism is the Gospel" in order to draw the conclusion that Paul and Silas preached Calvinism to the jailer.  This is a circular argument that proves nothing.

When reading a narrative account in scripture, we do not have the liberty to arbitrarily read into that passage things that are not stated. Scripture tells us the sorts of things that Jesus said to the thief on the cross.  Scripture tells us the sorts of things that Paul and Silas spoke to the Philippian jailer.  On neither occasion does the narrative tell us that Calvinistic doctrines were discussed.

We must believe that the divine Author of Holy Scripture chose His words carefully and gave us an accurate record of what was said on any given occasion.  Granted, it is not necessarily a complete record of everything that was said, but we would still expect it to be representative of what was said.  The fact that Calvinistic doctrine is so seldom mentioned in the evangelistic encounters is a very emphatic demonstration that Calvinism is not a necessary part of the gospel message.
 

Is Self-Generated Faith Necessarily a Work?
Another false presupposition in Mr. Tavares' theology is the claim that a self-generated faith must necessarily be a work.  However, if this is true, then it contradicts Jesus' statement to the unbelieving Jews in John 5:40.

John 5:40 - You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

First, He declares that these unbelieving Jews searched the Scriptures.  Why did they do this?  —Because they thought that eternal life could be found in God's Word.  Jesus affirms that eternal life can be found in the Scriptures because the Scriptures testify of Himself, who is the Fountain of life.

Second, He states plainly that they were unwilling to come to Him.  This is evidence of our Total Depravity.  No unregenerate man will ever genuinely come to Christ because no unregenerate man has the desire or willingness to come.

But third, He affirms that, if they would come to Him, they would receive life.  He tells them that the reason they do not have the life He gives is because they are unwilling to come to Him to receive it, and for this, they are blameworthy.  So, then, what is it that they are responsible to do? —They are responsible to come to Christ.  They are responsible to come whether or not God regenerates them.

So, in principle, what ought to happen?  They ought to come to Christ.  They ought to come without divine assistance.  Jesus affirms that, if they did come in this way, He would give them eternal life.

But here's the problem:  If a man, apart from regenerating grace, did obey God's command to come to Christ, he would be coming by his own faith, and Mr. Tavares claims that this would be a human contribution to salvation which would invalidate salvation by grace, and so they wouldn't be saved after all.  But Jesus says that, if they did come, He would give them life.  Who, then, do we believe?

It is no rebuttal to say that "If they did come, then that would prove that they were regenerate".  While this is certainly true, it doesn't address the fact that Jesus is confronting those who were unwilling to come and charging them with negligence and self-destruction for their refusal to come to Him and receive life.  He is saying that in principle, "You would receive eternal life if only you would come to Me in faith.  It is your own unwillingness—not God's refusal to grant faith to you—that prevents you from coming to Me and receiving eternal life."

Jesus' teaching in this passage proves that a self-generated faith is not necessarily a grace-destroying human work.  Genuine faith looks to Christ alone for redemption and forgiveness.  Our Lord here teaches that, except only for man's unwillingness to exercise faith, he could exercise such a faith and that it would be acceptable to God.

This passage proves Mr. Tavares' presupposition to be false and therefore nullifies many of the objections raised in his review, where he charges Arminians with holding to a works-based salvation.
 

Does Saving Faith require an Extensive, Advanced Understanding of Biblical Doctrine?
Those who claim that Calvinism is the gospel seem to forget that Calvinism is a complex system of Bible doctrines that requires grappling with many difficult issues in order to adequately understand how it can be consistent, both with itself and with Scripture.  To insist that a person is not saved unless he understands and believes Calvinistic teaching implies that no one can be saved until he has been through numerous theological studies that seek to present the various doctrines and to resolve the major difficulties that are normally encountered.

A person who is new to the faith will seldom have a comprehensive acquaintance with Scripture.  Suppose he is taught the Calvinistic truth that Christ died for the elect only, and suppose he genuinely embraces this truth.  But later, as he is reading through the gospel of John, he encounters the passage: "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29). Unless someone has explained to him that words like "world" and "all" often refer to nations and classes of men rather than all without exception, he will likely detect an inconsistency between the "gospel" he has received and the apparent teaching of scripture.

As a true believer, he cannot deny the gospel.  However, as a true believer, he cannot ignore the scriptures, either.  If someone then explains to him that "world" often refers to a universality of nations rather than a universality of persons, he may still wonder whether this person truly knows what he is talking about, or is being honest with him.  He may have lingering doubts that perhaps, like a new convert to Mormonism, he has been duped into believing something that scripture does not teach.

Obviously, the solution to this is to give the individual as extensive and complete an introduction as possible into Calvinism—dealing with the major objections, and giving substantive Biblical evidence to prove, for example, that "world" and "all" need not mean "all without exception".  Certainly, it is good and commendable to provide this kind of training for anyone who is willing and able to receive it.

The question remains, however, whether such a formidable amount of education and training is actually required for regeneration.  Is this the Biblical pattern?

How did Jesus evangelize the Samaritan woman in John 4?  Did He give her a semester-long course in Calvinism, setting forth each of the five points of Calvinism, teaching her that a self-generated faith must necessarily be a work that cannot save, exegeting from the Old Testament the various passages that teach Calvinism, as well as explaining those which might seem to contradict Calvinism?  Did He carefully explain to her how man's responsibility and God's sovereignty can be reconciled, how man has the freedom to sin but lacks the freedom to trust God, how we are justified by an imputed righteousness, that God has both a preceptive will and a decretive will, etc.?

Obviously, He did not.  His encounter with her probably lasted less than an hour.  The Holy Spirit was very careful to record the highlights of their conversation, which contains nothing that is distinctively Calvinistic.  The most profound theological truths He taught her were (1) that He was the Messiah, who could provide her with "living water" that would forever quench her thirst, (2) that salvation is of the Jews, and (3) that true worshipers must worship in spirit and truth.  It is ludicrous to suggest that this simple woman was given a comprehensive lesson in Calvinistic doctrine.  Yet, Scripture indicates that she was converted by her encounter with Christ that day.
 

Spurgeon, Whitefield & Owen.
It is interesting that Mr. Tavares does not address the matter of historical Calvinists and the fact that not one of them ever expressed the opinions championed on the "Outside the Camp" website.  Calvinistic theology is known today exclusively through the writings and teachings of godly men throughout history who never deemed it necessary to assert that Arminians are unsaved.  Who then are the true zealots for Calvinism?

Charles Spurgeon openly expressed the opinion that there are Arminians among the ranks of the regenerate.  George Whitefield regarded John and Charles Wesley as brothers in Christ to the day of his death.  Yet, the Wesleys were unquestionably Arminians, and John, in particular, expressed wicked opposition to Calvinism.

According to the "Outside the Camp" website, Spurgeon and Whitefield are necessarily unsaved, for they were guilty of "speaking peace" to Arminians.  How many multitudes of other Calvinists throughout history are likewise guilty of this "sin" (if it be a sin), is difficult to say.  But one thing is certain—few if any notable Calvinists have ever asserted the views expressed on this website.  Which means, if nothing else, that they did not regard such a teaching to be so plainly taught in scripture as Mr. Tavares and others apparently believe it to be.

"Outside the Camp" imagines that they (and the few who share their views) are the true church, and that anyone who disagrees with them is unsaved.  If so, it seems amazing that this is a "church" that has no continuity with the past, no significant impact on the present, and a message that viciously emphasizes the negative—telling us what not to believe, and who isn't a believer—rather than joyfully proclaiming the Savior and His sovereign mercy to hell-deserving sinners.
 

[2]This claim requires a bit of clarification.  "Outside the Camp" denies that they teach that a saved person will necessarily believe or understand the doctrines of Calvinism.  They insist, however, that every truly regenerate person will believe the doctrine of "efficacious atonement" (which is simply another name for Particular Redemption).

The obvious problem with this claim is that it is really impossible to embrace Particular Redemption with understanding and conviction without also understanding and embracing the other points of the TULIP.  To say that everyone for whom Christ died must, of necessity, be saved, while admitting that not all are saved, is to acknowledge that Christ was given for some and not for others.  To say that Christ was given for some and not others begs the question "On what basis did God decide whose sins Christ would bear?"  To insist that we are saved by the work of Christ alone, apart from any consideration of man's works, will or faith, implies that God's decision of whom to save was not based on anything in men, but on His own inscrutible will and sovereignty alone.  Hence, one must embrace Unconditional Election along with Particular Redemption.

Granted, a person initially might naively accept the idea that everyone for whom Christ died must, of necessity, be saved.  However, it is when he is faced with the logical consequences of that idea--that Christ did not die for all, and that God alone decides who will be saved--that he may shrink back from this doctrine.  To embrace the doctrine of Particular Redemption with understanding and conviction, one must think through the ramifications of that doctrine, weigh them against the scriptures, and be willing to accept these implications along with the doctrine itself.  It is only on mature, Biblically-informed reflection--considering the various Calvinistic implications of the doctrine--that one can, with conviction, embrace the doctrine of "efficacious atonement" as an undeniable truth.

Hence, we insist that, in order to embrace the doctrine of "efficacious atonement"--the way it is meant by "Outside the Camp"--one must have a mature understanding of the doctrines of grace, along with the Biblical proofs and answers to the Arminian arguments and proof-texts.  Since scripture gives many examples of people who savingly trusted in Christ without such a mature understanding of Calvinistic teachings, we conclude that the doctrine of "efficacious atonement" taught by OTC is not the gospel that every regenerate person must believe.  This is not to suggest that the doctrine is false, but only that it contains more detail than what is essential for salvation.