by Jeremy Tavares
(From Outside the Camp Vol. 8, No. 1)
On his web site called "A 21st Century Puritanism," a man named Mitch Cervinka has written an article
under the category of "Gospel Issues" entitled "Are All Arminians Unsaved?" Mr. Cervinka correctly
identifies this as a Gospel issue. However, in this article, he has attempted to refute the Gospel preached at
outsidethecamp.org, i.e., the true Gospel. The problems with such an endeavor are obvious in that there is
no way to refute truth; the closest one can come to doing so is to tell a clever lie, and Mr. Cervinka works
very hard at being clever. Mr. Cervinka claims that there are "certain obvious problems" with the doctrine
we preach and then takes almost 10,000 words to point out these "obvious" flaws. However, instead of
refuting the "obvious problems" of our position, all he can do is to construct elaborate straw men.
At the outset, Mr. Cervinka makes an outrageously ridiculous false accusation that exposes the style of his argument and tenor of his article: "By making saving faith to depend upon one's assessment of the salvation of Arminians, it displaces Christ as the focus of our faith. In answer to the question 'What must I do to be saved?' the answer (at least in part) would be: 'Believe that all Arminians are unsaved.'" (Note that in all quotes by Mr. Cervinka, emphasis is in the original.)
Where is anything like this stated at outsidethecamp.org? Where is any knowledge of Arminianism stated as a Gospel requirement? While all believers will know that the Gospel is a matter of life and death and that all who do not believe are unsaved, they will not necessarily have an understanding of the specifics of a particular heresy such as Arminianism or even know that it exists! A Christian need not know that there is a religion called Islam, but a Christian will know that any salvation doctrine that does not rest on the work of Christ is worthless. And when he encounters such a false religion, he will see it for what it is. If he came out of a false religion, he will see that he was unregenerate while in that religion. Christians cannot speak peace to someone in a worthless religion, just as they cannot claim that they themselves remained in a worthless religion after they were regenerated. Would Mr. Cervinka say that one who speaks peace to Muslims is unsaved? If so, would he then say that the answer (at least in part) to the question "What must I do to be saved?" is "Believe that all Muslims are unsaved"? Would he then be making saving faith dependent upon one's assessment of the salvation of Muslims? The absurdity of this argument is obvious.
Cervinka: "It (saving faith) is not mere conviction about the truth or falsity of various theological statements." Again, Mr. Cervinka is relying on his own imagination to supply our arguments. He goes on to say that saving faith is "a personal relationship with a personal Christ ... a relationship of continual trust in Him and His cross, of loving submission to Him as the Lord of all and Head of His Church, and of absolute delight in all that He is and does." Who is this Christ? What is this cross? What does it mean to trust in Christ and His cross? How can one trust Christ and His cross without understanding the doctrine of Christ (His person) and His cross (His work)? How is even Mr. Cervinka's own false doctrine stated but in terms of truth and falsity? How does one state truth in terms other than that of truth/non-falsity? Mr. Cervinka makes a concession to this by saying, "This, of course, does not mean that objective knowledge of certain Gospel-related doctrines is unnecessary, nor does it mean that we can deny certain plainly-revealed Gospel truths." So actually knowing what the Gospel is isn't unnecessary! And there are, in fact, undeniable Gospel truths! Mr. Cervinka is either negating the first thousand words or so of his article, or he is saying that belief in the Gospel is but a part of Salvation, that it needs something more to complement it. Some kind of work, perhaps?
Mr. Cervinka even says, "The person who supposes that salvation is obtained wholly or partly by human merit is lost." (As is the one who speaks peace to that person. - jt) Of course, this is exactly what an Arminian is, one who "supposes that salvation is obtained wholly or partly by human merit," which is, of course, why we judge Mr. Cervinka and his Arminian brethren to be lost.
Mr. Cervinka then shows his Arminian colors: "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." This is, of course, a lie from Lucifer, and it shows why he speaks peace to his Arminian brethren. If what Mr. Cervinka said were true, then there would be no Gospel, no Salvation. Imagine the question "Was Christ's atonement sufficient, or must our own works enter into our salvation?" answered by, "The Biblical Gospel presentations do not clearly answer this question"! Mr. Cervinka is saying that the gospel presentations in the Bible make no clear distinction between Salvation without works and Salvation as the result of works!
Scriptures state that man is dead in sin and by that fact alone incapable of ever pleasing God:
"And you, being dead in the deviations and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all the deviations, blotting out the handwriting in the ordinances against us, which was contrary to us, even [He] has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross; having stripped the rulers and the authorities, He made a show of them in public, triumphing [over] them in it" (Colossians 2:13-15).
"And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness more than the Light, for their works were evil" (John 3:19).
"But thanks [be] to God that you were slaves of sin, but you obeyed from [the] heart the form of doctrine to which you were delivered" (Romans 6:17).
Scriptures state that salvation is in no way preceded by any human contribution whatsoever:
"not by works in righteousness which we had done, but according to His mercy, He saved us through [the] washing of regeneration and renewal of [the] Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, our Savior; that being justified by His grace, we should become heirs according to [the] hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:5-7).
"No one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day" (John 6:44).
To justify speaking peace to Arminians, Mr. Cervinka uses passages like Romans 10:12-13: "For there is no difference both of Jew and of Greek, for the same Lord of all is rich toward all the ones calling on Him. For everyone, 'whoever may call on the name of [the] Lord will be saved.'" Call on the name of Lord, yes, but who is this Lord? Can someone who does not believe the Gospel "call on the name of the Lord"? No. "when he is judged, let him go out wicked; and let his prayer become sin" (Psalm 109:8). "The sacrifice of the wicked [is] a hateful thing to Jehovah, but the prayer of the upright [is] His delight" (Proverbs 15:8). "Jehovah [is] far from the wicked, but He hears the prayer of the righteous" (Proverbs 15:29). Even the prayer of the wicked is an abomination before God.
Mr. Cervinka makes his position even clearer when he states in no uncertain terms that "The Gospel, as such, is not so concerned with whether we understand our faith to be God-generated or self-generated, as long as the faith itself is fastened upon Christ." So, according to Mr. Cervinka, if I believe that my salvation is a result of my own work of fastening my faith upon Christ, then that's okay. His later contradictory statement, "Saving faith must center on Christ, to the exclusion of self," doesn't mitigate this; it shows that he is, in fact, contradicting himself.
Self-generated faith in Mr. Cervinka's imaginary "christ" is fine as long as you exclude yourself: "A truly saved person may errantly believe that his faith is self-generated, but genuine faith will never boast of itself or its own accomplishments." This is a clever attempt to extricate himself from the clash of his Godless fiction with plainly stated Bible doctrine, but it makes no sense. By believing that one is to any extent responsible for his own salvation is exactly that boast. To the Arminian, the difference between being saved and lost is entirely in the hands of the sinner, salvation being his to take or to throw back. To believe that one's own faith is self-generated is effectively to claim the status of co-redeemer. What bigger boast is there? Once more he cancels out his own argument.
Cervinka: "Those who are preoccupied with their own act of faith, and who make such rash claims as 'God cannot save you without your permission' or 'God has done His part, now you must do your part' have dethroned God and turned faith into a redemptive human work. It is quite possible that such persons have never experienced the grace of God. That form of Arminianism which asserts that God 'cannot' save us unless we permit Him to do so, is high treason against our Sovereign God, and those who truly believe this probably do not know Him as their Lord." Do you, the reader, see what he is saying here? These people have "dethroned God and turned faith into a redemptive human work," but it is only "quite possible" that such persons are unsaved; they "probably" do not know God. In other words, it is possible that these dethroners of God, these idolaters and liars are in fact saved. Mr. Cervinka is stating clearly that the sovereignty of God has no place among his essential doctrine and that he himself is an idolater.
Cervinka: "A person who is new to the faith may very easily assume that his faith originated from himself, since he did not perceive anything obviously supernatural in the way he received his faith." Obviously, such a person is new only to Mr. Cervinka's brand of false Christianity.
Cervinka: "However, it is false to say that one is unregenerate if he does not understand and believe all the various facets of soteriology. It is also false to assert that one is unregenerate simply because he has some erroneous ideas about certain aspects of soteriology. We need to draw clear distinctions concerning what is the essential object of saving faith, and what merely describes God's great works of salvation. We also need to leave room for a certain amount of growth and progress in Christian doctrine and life. To insist that a person is not regenerate unless his doctrine is perfect is akin to saying that a person is not regenerate unless he lives a perfectly sinless life. If a regenerate person can still commit sin, then a regenerate person can still hold erroneous doctrines." Yes, a regenerate person will still sin, and he can still hold to some erroneous doctrines (thus showing that we do not hold to perfectionism), but every regenerate person also believes the Gospel, which includes the doctrines of the person and work of Christ. Thus, he will not be in error about efficacy of the atonement, which is the very heart of the Gospel. One cannot believe in the object of Christ without believing in the doctrine of Christ. One does not "grow" or "progress" from believing in a false gospel to believing the true Gospel. If God's sovereignty isn't essential to the Gospel, then any other part of the Gospel can be dismissed; we can hold "erroneous doctrines" about any Gospel doctrine. Believing the deity of Allah, Ganesh, or Buddha could each be considered "erroneous doctrine."
Cervinka: "It is somewhat arbitrary to place doctrinal error in a different category from moral error. Clearly, there are some doctrines which a regenerate person cannot deny, but it is arbitrary to place Calvinistic doctrine in this category (except for a few considerations which were discussed in my former article)." Once again, Mr. Cervinka contradicts himself. In the same paragraph he says that it is "arbitrary" to put doctrinal error in a different category from moral error, and then he proceeds to do it himself! The Bible clearly says that sinlessness while on earth is NOT a part of salvation; believers WILL sin:
"For what I work out, I do not know. For what I do not will, this I do. But what I hate, this I do" (Romans 7:15).
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. ... If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us" (1 John 1:8,10).
Scripture also says that there is no Salvation without belief of the Gospel:
"For everyone, whoever may call on the name of [the] Lord will be saved. How then may they call on [One] into whom they have not believed? And how may they believe [One] of whom they have not heard? And how may they hear without preaching? And how may they preach if they are not sent? Even as it has been written, how beautiful the feet of those preaching the gospel of peace, of those preaching the gospel of good things" (Romans 10:13-15).
Cervinka: "Moreover, a person can simply be ignorant of certain Biblical doctrines." A Christian may be ignorant of some Biblical doctrines, but he will never be ignorant of the righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel:
"For I testify to them that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God" (Romans 10:2-3).
Mr. Cervinka falls back on to the old standbys of those who speak peace to universal atonement advocates - the thief on the cross and the Philippian jailer: "We can be reasonably certain that the thief on the cross, to whom Jesus said 'Today you will be with me in Paradise' (Luke 23:43), did not have a comprehensive understanding of Calvinistic doctrine ... When the Philippian jailer was stopped by Paul and Silas from commiting [sic] suicide, he asked them "What must I do to be saved?" The apostles did not give him a short course in Calvinistic soteriology. Rather, they made the simple statement: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved ..." (Acts 16:30-31)." 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 thief knew exactly who Christ was and what Christ's atonement did; he had to be certain of God's sovereignty. 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!
Mr. Cervinka says that the following statement is not important "in the sense that it is something which a regenerate person must understand and believe": "God from eternity past has unconditionally chosen certain ones unto salvation, that Christ died for the elect only, and that faith is God's sovereign gift, imparted by the Holy Spirit when He regenerates the elect individual." So in his doctrine, the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection and the sovereignty of God are not essential. This is pure Satanic blasphemy. This man is spitting on the work of Christ, on the atonement, on God's very nature.
Mr. Cervinka's God-hating colors show through clearly yet again when he says: "But surely a person who expresses hatred at the idea of a sovereign God is unsaved, isn't he? ... Perhaps." Perhaps? To Mr. Cervinka, it is possible that those who hate the idea of a sovereign God are saved. And more: "if the individual has a distorted understanding of God's sovereignty, supposing that would make God the author of evil, and would mean that He somehow forces men to sin, or that He exercises His sovereignty in a tyrannical or unjust manner, then surely he ought to hate such a 'God' as that! We all ought to hate such a view of God!" Note the use of the word "tyrannical" - as opposed to what? A democratic God? A servant of the people? This is, of course, what this idolater believes. His god is a pocket-god, subject to the decisions of his supposed servants who are in fact the real gods, the masters of their own fates, not subject to the horrible tyranny of the God of the Bible!
Consider what Mr. Cervinka is saying here: "The message we preach will often include other things beyond the bare minimum of what must be believed. In the message preached, we demonstrate that all men are sinners who fully deserve the wrath of God, and that Jesus Christ has fully paid for the sins of everyone who trusts in Him. We show men the inability of the Law to save them. We declare to them that their good works can in no way contribute to their standing before God, because that would imply that there is some deficiency in the work of Christ." 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"!
Mr. Cervinka condemns himself when he says: "When an Arminian utters statements to the effect that God is a failure (because, despite all His best efforts, many nevertheless go to hell), he has uttered blasphemy against His holy name and it is difficult to believe that such a person has truly experienced the grace of regeneration." "Difficult to believe" indeed! But isn't Mr. Cervinka himself saying that God is a failure? Don't all Arminians believe that God loves and desires the salvation of every single human being, including all who will go to hell? Isn't the doctrine of a powerless god preached by the Arminians whom Mr. Cervinka calls brothers?