How Much Doctrine Can One Distort or Deny and Still Be Saved?

Justin Taylor quoted "the great Puritan theologian" John Owen (1616-1683) as writing: "Men may be really saved by that grace which doctrinally they do deny; and they may be justified by the imputation of that righteousness which in opinion they deny to be imputed" (The Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone in John Owen's Works 5:163-64). (link) Justin asks, How much doctrine can one distort or deny and still be saved? 

In raising this question, he grants us perspectives of such Calvinists as John Piper, J.I. Packer, Jonathan Edwards, Herman Witsius, and Michael Horton, concluding with various and carefully constructed answers. 

Justin Taylor is a great admirer of John Owen, while Owen is the quintessential bane of the Arminian's existence. I want to remind everyone that John Owen is the man who insisted that Arminians are "tares in the field," used by Satan, and "never did any of his emissaries employ his received talents with more skill and diligence than our Arminians" and, hence, are not saved. (link) How much doctrine can one distort or deny and still be saved? Evidently, one must be a Calvinist in order to be saved, or at least harbor some semblance of Calvinism, according to Owen.  

Owen, as well as Augustus Toplady, charged Arminians as idolaters: "Our next task," writes Owen, "is to take a view of the idol himself, of this great deity of free-will, whose original being not well known, he is pretended, like the Ephesian image of Diana, to have fallen down from heaven, and to have his endowments from above." (link) John Owen, having been familiar with the works and views of Arminius and the Arminians on the subject of free will, is, therefore, found to be a liar.  

Both Arminius and the Remonstrants -- as well as all subsequent Classical Arminians -- have in the most explicit terms possible demonstrated that they do not believe in free will as much as freed will with regard to embracing the gospel of Christ by faith. Without the gracious ability of the enabling Holy Spirit, no one could ever trust in Christ for salvation. The subject of free will, in general, is rightly placed in the context of theodicy, namely, that God did not decree us to sin but included our foreknown sin into His overall plan; and that when we sin we do so of our free will and not because of God's decree.

Owen, however, took liberties to distort and misrepresent the theology of the Arminians in the sole effort of slander and abuse. Is this your "great Puritan theologian," Calvinists? But let us not stop here. Owen and Toplady are not lone star men in the charge of denouncing Arminians:

Edwin Palmer thinks Arminians deny God's sovereignty (link); John MacArthur, Mark Driscoll, David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, S. Lance Quinn, J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston think Arminians advocate semi-Pelagianism (link//link//link); R.C. Sproul, Sr. argues that Arminians are "barely saved": "They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency" (link); he and Charles Spurgeon confessed that Arminianism is a return to Rome, because it makes faith into a work or merit (link//link); by rejecting strict, exhaustive monergism, Packer, Johnston and Sproul claim Arminians to be "unChristian" and "anti-Christian" (link); Abraham Kuyper spread the blatant lie that Arminius was inspired by the heretic and denier of the divinity of Christ Fausto Paolo Sozzini  (link); Michael Horton once wrote that wherever Arminianism was adopted, "Unitarianism followed, leading on to the bland liberalism of present mainline denominations" (link), conveniently neglecting to mention that many Presbyterians also fell into Unitarianism in the eighteenth century; Justin Taylor and Ardel Caneday (and a host of other Calvinists) insist, in Gnostic fashion, that all who deny Calvinism have not yet "had their eyes opened" to its truths (link) -- a complaint, by consistent necessity, that is actually leveled against God Himself, and not Arminians or others, since God determines every minutiae of our existence. 

None of these men have yet to retract a single word or phrase. What are we to make of all these outrageous and unwarranted claims from Calvinists spanning from the seventeenth century to the present era? What conclusion are we to make, except that, in order to be saved from the wrath of God one must be, to whatever degree, a Calvinist! 

I completely understand that Justin Taylor's post was not in any way possible implying that in order to be saved he, and all others quoted, believed that only Calvinists are saved. But since the subject of his post concerned how much doctrine one can either distort or deny and still be saved, I thought it appropriate to highlight what Calvinists have stated, from the seventeenth century to the present era, and draw logical deductions.

Calvinist theologian B.B Warfield stated, "The world should realize with increased clearness that Evangelicalism stands or falls with Calvinism." (link) Calvinist Baptist pastor Charles Spurgeon stated, "I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else." (link)

Calvinists like John Owen and many other Calvinists have the reckless audacity to accuse Arminians of idolatry when so many men and women from their own Calvinist camp equate their theological conclusions with the gospel itself -- the very height of arrogance!

Moreover, Warfield's conclusion is nothing more than an admission that only Calvinism is Christian theology proper, for Evangelicalism itself falls if not Calvinistic. If that is true, then no man or woman was ever saved prior to Augustine in the fifth century. Furthermore, no man or woman who denied Augustine's novelties were saved thereafter, either.

Many Calvinists complicate the simple gospel. Their obsession with the alleged mysteries of unconditional election and the tension between God's sovereignty (as they define the word) and human free will -- mysteries and tensions which their own theology unnecessarily creates -- causes them to miss the beauty of the simplicity of the gospel.

An explicit question is asked in Scripture that corresponds directly to Justin's main post: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" asked a particular jailer (Acts 16:30). The answer came, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, along with everyone in your household" (Acts 16:31 NLT; cf. Acts 2:37-41). There is no mention of doctrine -- i.e., the jailer's views on the atonement, election and predestination, prayer language or Spirit baptism, eschatology, baptism, justification, sanctification, perseverance -- only Jesus!

"Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved" may seem too simplistic for our modern, educated and enlightened academics. Such a response lacks mystery and tension and thus may not appeal to some. We must admit, though, that some people actually imagine for themselves a different Jesus than the One presented in Scripture (2 Cor. 11:4), and construct a different gospel than what the apostles preached (Gal. 1:6-8).

Assuming, however, that one has received the biblical Jesus and the biblical gospel for oneself, and has subsequently been regenerated or born again, then, according to the Calvinist position on perseverance, such a one will necessarily be saved. Then why frame the main question as to how much doctrine one can distort or deny and still be saved? Can one distort too much doctrine and lose his or her salvation? Not according to Calvinism.

Moreover, since Calvinists define God's sovereignty in strict, deterministic language, then of what concern is it to Calvinists that this or that person distorted or denied essential doctrines and was discovered not to be saved? Obviously, that is how God decreed the matter.

What is my overall point? My point is that many Calvinists ask too many inconsistent questions that in no way correspond with what they claim to believe. Why do they concern themselves with matters such as false gospels invading the church, or the rise of semi-Pelagianism or Arminianism, or the lack of Spirit-filled, gospel-driven churches? If God has decreed every minutiae of life then He has also decreed those realities.

In that case, He has decreed false gospels to deceive whomever He wanted deceived. He decreed the rise of semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism, and complaining Calvinists are actually arguing against God's decreed order. "Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God?" (Rom. 9:20 NLT)

He also decreed that churches exist without Spirit-filled leading and a gospel-centered focus. If Christ's church needs revival and is not experiencing revival then God has decreed that she not experience revival. Perhaps many Calvinists too often forget or neglect the alleged scriptural summation of their own deterministic theology: "Our God is in the heavens, and he does as he wishes" (Ps. 115:3 NLT).