Divine sovereignty and humanity’s free will work together in soteriology (the doctrine of salvation); and Calvinism and Arminianism are not the only choices one has in approaching soteriology, for the Scripture teaches that salvation is a mystery of God (Col. 4:3; 1 Tim. 3:9; Eph. 5:25-32, 6:19) and the only source of truth regarding salvation is ultimately the Scriptures themselves (2 Pet. 2:16-21; 2 Tim. 3:15-17). In this paper, the stage will first be set to understand the development of major streams of soteriological thought, namely Calvinism and Arminianism. Then a few heresies will be clarified before proceeding to the body of harmonizing soteriology. The prevailing views of soteriology in regard to free will and predestination will be compared to scholars and Christian leaders while the whole will be scrutinized by the Scriptures themselves. The paper endeavors to show that God’s plan of soteriology is ultimately a mystery and that developing a hard system of theology in regard to God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free agency has historically been based on opinion rather than clear, Scriptural doctrine. Scripture teaches both God’s sovereignty and mankind’s choice; not either free will or predestination. Here is a helpful quote to begin:
John 3:16 addresses a number of “isms.” The phrase “For God” responds to atheism, which claims there is no God. The phrase “so loved” responds to fatalism, which asserts God is an impersonal force. The phrase “the world” responds to nationalism, which says God loves only one group of people. The phrase “that He gave” responds to materialism, which says it is more blessed to receive than to give. The phrase “His only begotten Son” responds to Mohammedism, which says God has no Son. The phrase “that whosoever believes” responds to five-point Calvinism, which says Christ died only for the elect. The phrase “should not perish” responds to annihilationism, which says there is no hell. The phrase “but have everlasting life” responds to Arminianism, which says God only gives life conditionally. John 3:16 is a simple Biblicism which reveals the mind, the heart, and the will of God.
Setting the Stage
The modern debate between Calvinism and Arminianism or in the common vernacular, predestination and free will respectfully, is a debate that did not originate with the teachings of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius. In actuality, the debate goes all the way back to the Church Fathers, including Augustine who developed the doctrines of grace defining a theology of total depravity and election, and Origen who developed a doctrine of universalism, meaning that everyone will ultimately be saved. Arminius developed his doctrine in opposition to the predominate views of Calvinism that had become widespread post-reformation. The primary debate was whether salvation is of God’s own pre-determination or whether man could respond of his own initiative to the Gospel message. Arminius’ followers, the Remonstrants, after his death, “affirmed a conditional election upon the basis of foreseen faith, along with a universal atonement, the possibility of resisting grace, and the possibility of lapsing from grace. Their teaching was condemned at the [Calvinist] Synod of Dort in 1618-1619.”
Calvin, on the other hand, was a humanist who was known for being “impetuous and immature” prior to his salvation. Calvin married a “widow [who was a] converted Anabaptist” and was known for his discipline and political involvement throughout his life. Lane notes that Calvin is often blamed for the TULIP doctrines, but despite being “Blamed for the doctrine of predestination [it was] … clearly taught by Augustine.”
Why the emphasis of predestination in the doctrines of the Reformation? “Luther and Calvin were Augustinian monks … Calvinism is really Augustinianism.” Due to the fact that both of these early Protestant leaders had been Catholic, Augustinian monks this likely influenced their views, namely in regard to Augustinian theological constructs. Augustine is considered the father of the western church and had an upbringing by a Christian mother, yet turned to Greek philosophy then Manichaeism and then Neo-Platonist ideology before his conversion. Augustine developed his doctrine as the result of an ascetic life of study and defended the Catholic church against Pelagius’ ideas of Christian perfection and cooperating grace.
Heresy – No Apologies
Three heresies regarding soteriology must be dealt with unapologetically from the beginning of a discussion on soteriology. First, Pelagianism which believes in a moralism of mankind that does not have a sin nature. This view is anathema to Scripture (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22; Eph. 2). Second, Socinianism exalts reason as the standard lifting man into a form of defied humanism and rejects the Trinity, divinity of Jesus Christ and reality of Hell. Socinianism is embraced by modern “Unitarians and universalists.” This view is contrary to Scripture and clearly violates the admonition that we must admit our sin and need for Christ or else we do not have salvation (1 Jn. 1, 4; 2 Jn. 1:7, 9-11). Third, Hyper-Calvinism teaches that God created evil and predetermined some to be His saved elect and others He appointed to damnation. This view is incompatible with the clear statement of the Scriptures that Hell was created and intended not for man but for Satan and his demons (Matt. 25:41; 2 Pet. 2:4). Mankind joined Satan’s ranks in the Fall, there was no death prior in this world, and cosigned itself to the same fate in Hell (Rev. 20:14-15). Billy Graham holds to this Scriptural view.
The Five Debated Doctrines Summarized
With the historical roots of the debate of free will and divine sovereignty and the heresies clearly set aside, the five most debated doctrines will be briefly explained in the excerpt below from the respected layman resource, GotQuestion.org:
Both systems can be summarized with five points. Calvinism holds to the total depravity of man while Arminianism holds to partial depravity. Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity states that every aspect of humanity is corrupted by sin; therefore, human beings are unable to come to God on their own accord. Partial depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that human beings are unable to place faith in God of their own accord. Note: classical Arminianism rejects “partial depravity” and holds a view very close to Calvinistic “total depravity” (although the extent and meaning of that depravity are debated in Arminian circles). In general, Arminians believe there is an “intermediate” state between total depravity and salvation. In this state, made possible by prevenient grace, the sinner is being drawn to Christ and has the God-given ability to choose salvation.
Calvinism includes the belief that election is unconditional, while Arminianism believes in conditional election. Unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will, not on anything inherently worthy in the individual. Conditional election states that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation, thereby on the condition that the individual chooses God.
Calvinism sees the atonement as limited, while Arminianism sees it as unlimited. This is the most controversial of the five points. Limited atonement is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect. Unlimited atonement is the belief that Jesus died for all, but that His death is not effectual until a person receives Him by faith.
Calvinism includes the belief that God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminianism says that an individual can resist the grace of God. Irresistible grace argues that when God calls a person to salvation, that person will inevitably come to salvation. Resistible grace states that God calls all to salvation, but that many people resist and reject this call.
Calvinism holds to perseverance of the saints while Arminianism holds to conditional salvation. Perseverance of the saints refers to the concept that a person who is elected by God will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him. Conditional salvation is the view that a believer in Christ can, of his/her own free will, turn away from Christ and thereby lose salvation.
Perhaps the best place to attempt understanding soteriology is going back to the beginning. God created a perfect world and created Adam and Eve (Gen. 1). He gave them everything and a perfect life and world. Yet God did not create robots, He created mankind to have the ability to obey or disobey (Gen. 1:30, 2:16-17, 3:13). Fundamentally, sin is disobedience to God (1 Jn. 3:4; Rom. 7:7). Even the angels possess some form of freedom for they chose to stay loyal to God or join the rebel Satan (Ez. 28:12-18; Is. 14:12-14; 1 Tim. 5:21; 2 Pet. 2:4). Did God predestinate and create evil? Such and argument is not Scriptural. God is sovereign, good and holy. He cannot create evil (1 Jn. 1:5, 3:9; Js. 1:13; 2 Cor. 5:21; Hab. 1:13; Heb. 6:18; Titus 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:13; Matt. 4:1-11; Lk. 4:1-13; Jn. 16:13). He can accomplish His ultimate decree despite evil and sin (Rom. 3:15; 1 Sam. 16:14; Job 1:6-12; Rom. 8). God knows past, present and future (Is. 55:8-9; Heb. 4:13). God has always existed (Heb. 11:6), whereas none of His creation have existed eternally (Ps. 139:13; Jer. 1:5; Is. 49:5-7; Heb. 11:3). What a glory and wonder that the perfect and triune God made His creations with freedom. Freedom to love Him or to rebel (Gen. 4:1-15; 1 Jn. 3:12). God will one day put an end to the demonic rebellion; evil and the fallen creation that is a results of mankind’s rebellion (Rev. 20-21). Adam willingly disobeyed and Eve was deceived (1 Tim. 2:14), but both are guilty of sin (Rom. 3:23, 5:12). And because of that choice, for all sin comes by our choice (1 Jn. 3:4; Deut. 9:7; Gen. 3; Rom. 3:10-12, 5:12, 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:22; Is. 64:6), the consequences of death and pain had to come (Gen. 3; Rom. 3:23, 6:23). Only obedience, righteousness, and justice can be rewarded by a just God and fair Judge (Prov. 13:21; 1 Sam. 26:23).
Reconciling Both Sides in Jesus Christ, the Word of God
According to the course text, Erickson says, “Calvinists believe that God’s plan is logically prior and human decisions and actions are a consequence.” Yet as Charles Spurgeon, a well-known Calvinist said in 1872 while expositing Scripture, Ishmael represents “human efforts” and Isaac the
“promise…by power of God. We trace our new birth not to blood, nor to the will of the flesh, nor to the will of man, but to God alone. We owe our conversion neither to the reasoning of the logician nor to the eloquence of the orator, neither to our natural betterness nor to our personal efforts; we are, as Isaac was, the children of God’s power according to the promise.”
A hearty amen! To the Law and to the Testimony (Is. 8:20); may the regenerate unite around this truth—Christ died for the remission of sins while we were still God’s enemies (Acts 10:23; Rom. 3:24-25, 5:6-11).
Despite the raging debates, as long as the true Gospel is preached: that all mankind are sinners (Rom. 3:23); that Jesus Christ died for your sin and rose again (1 Cor. 15:1-4) giving You a new life if you simply repent and believe on Him (Acts 16:31), then there should be unity (Phil. 2:1-4, 1:12-18). Despite some very egregious errors doctrinally on the Wesley brother’s end, namely Christian perfection and the second blessing, George Whitefield repeatedly sought to reunite with Arminian brother pair who were his old friends. Such is sorely needed today! May Scripture be the anthem and may we not compromise at any point, no matter how minute; but may the Scripture’s Gospel be our anthem and focus. Whether men preach from contention, self-seeking glory or obedience to a divine call, Paul gloried by that the Gospel was preached (Phil. 1:12-18). Yet, note clearly that Paul also maintained a clear and direct opposition of false teachers whom he most certainly is not addressing in this statement (1 Tim. 1:3-11; 2 Tim. 2:14-26; Titus 3:9-11).
Examining the Scriptures’ Revelation of Soteriology
In Regard to the Depravity of Mankind
All mankind are sinners and have sinned in Adam (Rom. 3:23, 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22). Scripture unequivocally teaches that mankind is dead in their sin and trespasses spiritually (Rom. 3:23; Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13) and are doomed to eternal death without God’s grace (Rom. 6:23). The present debate on depravity on both counts goes beyond Scripture. The idea that mankind is so fallen in sin that he can no longer respond to God’s Gospel message is false (Acts 3:19; Ez. 33:11; Jer. 18:7-11). Examining the context of the Fall, man and woman immediately know their sin (Gen. 3:7). They attempt to hide it from God, they blame each other and the serpent (Gen. 3:8-13) but they do all of this talking to whom? God. They are unable to make restitution for their sin and thus they learn about blood sacrifice from God (Gen. 3:21) as a foreshadowing of Christ’s blood as the final and perfect sacrifice that would come centuries in the future (Gen. 3:15).
Election of the Redeemed and Atonement by Christ’s Blood
Election is certainly a Scriptural term and concept. The debate is over what it means. Hershel Hobbs says, that God “has willed not to violate the free will of man.” This perspective seems consistent with the original, perfect world of Adam and Eve where they had the ability to obey or disobey God (Gen. 1:30, 2:16-17, 3:13) and with the millennial reign of Christ where a group will arise and turn to Satan to rebel at the end of the thousand years (Rev. 20). Calvinism, in general, posits a deterministic or even fatalistic proposition that God has determined before the foundation of the world who will be saved. Scripture certainly teaches God’s foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ (Eph. 1; Rom. 7-9), predestination of Believers (Eph. 1; Rom. 7-9) and election of the invisible Church (Eph. 1; Matt. 13:24-30; Heb. 12:1). Hobbs responds that “In his atoning work Christ has made reconciliation possible.” He continues saying, “’Election’ or ‘predestination’…is no excuse for fatalism. Election is not mechanical. It involves a God who is love and a man who is morally responsible. It never appears in the Bible as a violation of human will.” Hobbs view seems in line with Scriptures teaching, the Jews are not saved today merely for being of Jewish descent. No, they must believe on Jesus Christ and yet they are God’s chosen, elected people. Paul confirms this in Romans 10 and 11. Although the Jews were chosen by God and therefore they were “saved” while the world was condemned in the Old Testament (Ex. 6:6; Amos 3:2; Is. 41:8); yet to the contrary, they were not the only ones who could be “saved.” Before the Law was even given, there were worshippers of the One True God (Gen. 4:26, 5:22, 6:9, 14:18-20). And after the Law, Gentiles were saved by turning to the one true God and crying out for salvation including the city of Nineveh who repented (Jonah 3), Rahab the prostitute (Josh. 6:25), Ruth the Moabite (Ruth 1:16) and Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4). Jeremiah 18:7-10 in the NKJV harmonizes Free Will and Sovereignty into one coherent understanding:
The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
Clement of Alexandria made the statement that “Choice depended on the man as being free. But the gift depended on God as the Lord. And He gives to those who are willing, are exceedingly earnest, and who ask. In this manner, their salvation can become their own. For God does not compel.” Sadly, the common cliché in soteriology is that Calvinists neglect free will completely, reducing man to a robot and Arminians exalt free will to such an extent that the human’s choices and actions are sovereign, even divine. Neither one of these should be the response of the redeemed. Instead the elect, “the remnants … will realize that they are not better than anyone else because the Lord has allowed their eyes to be open. They have a bigger responsibility because of it.”
Tied in with the topic of election is the atonement, namely was Christ’s death for all mankind’s sin or only the sin the elect (those who would be saved)? Scripture passages are used by both sides, but in context, all of these passages harmonize to show that Christ died according to God’s will for the sin of all mankind (Gal. 1:4; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 5:8). His sacrifice is not appropriated, not credited to any accept those who receive Him (Jn. 20:31; Rom. 6:23; Col. 2:6; Rev. 22:17; 1 Jn. 5:13) nonetheless, Jesus’ has paid the debt for all mankind (2 Cor. 5:15; 1 Pet. 3:18; Rom. 5:8; 1 Jn. 2:2) for anyone who will accept or reject the free gift of salvation (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10; 1 Jn. 4:15, 5:1; Rev. 22:17). So is the atonement limited? There is no indication that it is. Christ died to make salvation possible to all, however righteousness is only credited to the one who believes (Jn. 20:31; Acts. 4;12).
To begin, why would God’s grace have to overtake man? Every moment we exist is because of His grace. Mankind’s very breath comes from God (Job 33:4; Is. 42:5). It is God who breathed into man and He becomes a living soul (Gen. 2:7), and it is God who knits us together in secret in our mother’s womb (Ps. 139:12). The Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of Grace (Zech. 12:10), and the Scripture makes it clear that the Holy Spirit can be grieved by individual’s sin (Eph. 4:30), resisted by their actions (Acts 7:51), and lied to (Acts 5:3). Jesus Christ came full of Grace and Truth (Jn. 1:14) but He pointedly looked to the Pharisees and told them stop resisting the Spirit (Matt. 12); Stephen echoed the same (Acts 7).
In regard to God’s grace, the Scripture is clear that each person is accountable for their own sin and they must personally believe or perish (Deut. 24:16; Jn. 3:16, 11:26; Acts 16:31). All sin is disobedience, rebellion to God’s clear command (1 Jn. 3:4); therefore, sin is our choice (Gen. 2:16-17, 4:7). There is no sin without us exercising our freedom to disobey God rather than joyful obey Him. What a wonderful grace, the unmerited favor of God that extends the common acrostic “God’s Riches At Christ’s Expense” to us if we just admit to Him our wrong and submit ourselves to His Lordship (Mark 1:15). Clearly, Scripture does not teach an irresistible grace. Yet Calvinist Michael Horton says “Not only can God’s grace be resisted; it is always resisted by the fallen heart” but where does Scripture give this doctrine? Yes, the unregenerate man cannot receive spiritual the graces of the paraclete, because he does not have the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14) but Peter and Stephen call an entire nation to account for resisting the Gospel (Acts 2:36, 4:10). Horton goes on to say:
It is vital to distinguish the new birth (or effectual calling) from conversion. In the former, we are passive: acted upon and within by the triune God through the gospel. In the latter we are active (having been ‘activated’ by grace), since we are raised from spiritual death to everlasting life. If we fail to distinguish these ‘moments,’ we easily fall into the Arminain error of thinking that because the new birth precedes our response, there is no place for the later. The new birth yields the fruit of repentance and faith.
Eternal Security-Is Eternal Life Really Eternal or My Choice?
A survey of Hebrews teaches that Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of individual’s Faith (Heb. 12:2). While Hebrews chapter 10 and 6 have been used to propound the Arminian argument that salvation depends on man’s free will; therefore, salvation can be received and yet rejected in the end. The book of Hebrews was written to Jewish Believers who had neglected their salvation and were spiritually immature (Heb. 5:12-6:3); however, the book, and especially chapter 10, assures the believers of their security in Christ (Heb. 10:10-25) and yet rebukes their sin, warning them that they will be held to account (Heb. 10:26-39). This is seen in the beginning of chapter 6 which teaches that if salvation can be lost, it cannot be regained, but is lost forever; therefore, there need be no anxiety about having to “stay saved” (Heb. 6:4-8). To the contrary, the author of Hebrews affirms a confidence in Christ’s finished work (Heb. 6:9, 19-20).
Wrapping in Up
What do we know of salvation? It is all of God’s grace (Eph. 2:8-9)! It is only through Faith in Jesus Christ alone (Eph. 2:8-9). Is it of either free choice of Jesus or God’s predestination? Scripture provides evidence for both (Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2; Rom. 10). Jesus Christ is both the author and the finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2); yet our response must be faith in Him or else we know that we are not among the chosen redeemed, but among the masses on the road to Hell (Acts 4:12). Salvation is a mystery like marriage (Eph. 5; 1 Cor. 7); therefore, it cannot be totally comprehended. Man’s efforts to understand soteriology result in constructed, rational theologies. Biblically, a saving response to the Gospel is faith—the Bible is crystal clear on that—Believe on Jesus: surrender to Him (Matt. 16:24-27) and be adopted from being a child of Satan to being a child of God (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21; Jn. 1:12). God’s response to mankind’s sin problem is Jesus and man’s response is Faith in Jesus or rejection of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. Maybe we could say it this way, Jesus Christ is the Bridegroom and we are the Bride but the Bride still has to say, “I do.” As GotQuestions.org puts it “Human beings are incapable of fully grasping a concept such as this. Yes, God is absolutely sovereign and knows all. Yes, human beings are called to make a genuine decision to place faith in Christ unto salvation. These two facts seem contradictory to us, but in the mind of God they make perfect sense.”
Divine sovereignty and human free will working together is a mystery because salvation is a mystery. Certain aspects can be understood, but faith is convinced of what it can’t see, it is based on a belief that God will do what He has promised (Heb. 11). Spurgeon’s response is appropriate, “I wish to be called nothing but a Christian.” And yet Spurgeon also said that his view of Calvinism was due to his own opinion, what made sense to his mind: “I suppose there are some persons whose minds naturally incline towards the doctrine of free-will…mine includes as naturally towards the doctrines of sovereign grace…I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so.” The aim of this paper has been to show that the Scriptures do not teach either Divine Sovereignty or humanity’s Free Will but that the Scripture harmonizes them into a unified doctrine that is a mystery to the finite mind of man. Dr. Mitchell of Liberty University summarizes it well, “election and predestination are biblical doctrines. The issue is how we understand them. In the New Testament predestination is nuanced to Gentiles … inclusive rather than exclusive.” He continues noting the reason for the debate, “the issue is the logic of what God is doing in Christ.” So there it is, this debate is rooted in reality on man’s reason. Olson goes a step further stating that God “is primarily viewed as either (1) majestic, powerful, and controlling or (2) loving, good, and merciful.” Allen says, “Reformed theologians … have emphasized the importance of … understanding … the nature of human idolatry and the enduring justice of God.” Again, the emphasis is on viewpoint. As Adrian Rogers once said, “You’re free to choose. You’re not free not to choose. And you’re not free to choose the consequences of your choices. Your choices choose for you.” The Calvinist does not want to attribute the smallest aspect of his salvation to anything other than God’s doing and grace whereas the Arminian argues that God’s grace is His love for everyone allowing them to choose Christ or Hell.
So in this conclusion, where do I personally stand on the issue of divine sovereignty and free will? I believe the Scriptures and I believe that the Southern Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is the most Biblical approach to the debate with a modified form of Calvinism rooted from the Scriptures alone, apart from any creed or fallible council of man. I grew up Arminian and preached that salvation could be lost. I am not proud of that. Digging into the Scriptures with ministers assured me of eternal security. I do not like the fruit of Arminianism. During my undergraduate studies, I read John Wesley’s Journals and Account of Christian Perfection. I discovered that Wesley’s legacy is one of being argumentative, accusing George Whitefield of being a child of Satan for holding to Calvinism, marital discord, teaching that salvation could be lost, fanaticism, extrabiblical spiritual experiences, and teaching that by receiving a “second blessing” post-salvation experience whereby a person becomes entirely sanctified—therefore perfect and no longer sinning. This is the Pelagian heresy of centuries ago! I understand that Wesley’s teaching on perfectionism is not representative of core Arminian thought but whoever says he does not sin is not a child of God (1 Jn. 1:8). I personally distance myself greatly from Arminianism’s errors. But Calvinism also does not have a Scriptural basis, for a strict interpretation of it portrays God predestining evil and sin. Both systems depend not on Scripture but on the doctrines formulated by men in response to the attacks on God’s truth in their day. The debate continues because on each side of the debate, hearts are fully assured of what they believe as Spurgeon was of Calvinism. May eyes be turned from fruitless academic debate. This the Scriptures declare—that salvation is completely by God’s grace; through faith in Jesus Christ alone and not of my works (Eph. 2:8-9). Exactly how that plays out is in my Savior’s hands! I dare not add my necessity (extreme free-will) but I dare not attribute Him to creating sin and evil either (hyper-predestination) and I dare not lean to my own understanding (Prov. 3:5; Is. 55) but have faith in the promise of God (Heb. 11).
 David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke, editors, Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five Point Calvinism, Nashville, TN, B&H Publishing Group, 2010, 14.
 Tony Lane, Exploring Christian Thought (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 41-45.
 “Five articles of Remonstrance,” accessed August 4, 2016, http://www.theopedia.com/five-articles-of-remonstrance.
 “The Five Arminian Articles (1610),” accessed August 12, 2016, http://www.esvbible.org/resources/creeds-and-catechisms/article-the-five-arminian-articles-1610/.
 Ibid., 142.
 David Mitchell, Liberty University Baptist Theological Seminary, lecture on ItunesUniversity, Systematic Theology II: “What does God know and When does He know it? 12 minutes in, accessed August 4, 2016.
 Erikson, Christian Theology, 716-717.
 Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), 80.
 Billy Graham echoes a belief in whosoever will regarding salvation and that Hell was not created for the unelected but for Satan and demons. Thomas Paul Johnson, Examining Billy Graham’s Theology of Evangelism (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003), 207-208.
 Original text: “Calvinism vs. Arminianism – which view is correct?” accessed August 9, 2016, http://www.gotquestions.org/Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html.
 Erickson, Christian Theology, 326.
 For a further discussion see, Thomas S. Kidd, George Whitfield: America’s Spiritual Founding Father (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2014).
 David Mitchell, Liberty University Baptist Theological Seminary, lecture on ItunesUniversity, Systematic Theology II: “What does God know and When does He know it?” 18 min in, accessed August 4, 2016.
 The Holy Bible, New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982).
 Michael Horton, For Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 105.
 “Calvinism vs. Arminianism – which view is correct?” accessed August 9, 2016, http://www.gotquestions.org/Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html.
 C.H. Spurgeon, A Defense of Calvinism (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2008), 24. This booklet is taken from Chapter 13 of The Early Years, Vol. I of C.H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography (London: Banner of Truth, 1962).
 David Mitchell, Liberty University Baptist Theological Seminary, lecture on ItunesUniversity, Systematic Theology II: “What does God know and When does He know it?” 18 min in, accessed August 4, 2016.
 R. Michael Allen, Reformed Theology (New York: T&T Clark International, 2010), 13.
 The Southern Baptist Convention, “The Baptist Faith and Message 2000,” accessed August 10, 20016, http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp.