TWO CROSSES - one true and one damning




     I think that in my own theological journey the one doctrine that has received antagonism is supralapsarianism. Many "reformers" have even shunned the thought of a God who is actively, yes actively sovereign over sin as well as righteousness.

     One other doctrine, however, that seems to be almost as appalling to Arminians as well as Calvinists is the doctrine that there is only one cross (I use the words Arminian and Calvinist simply for easy reference and not for universal adherence). You may be thinking that all of them only believe there is one cross, even Arminians. It is true that we all profess that there is only one cross just as it is true that we all profess to believe in predestination. But you all know as well as I do that the Arminian definition of predestination is diametrically opposed to the sovereign grace definition of predestination. In fact, consider these various terms or doctrines which certain denominations or even religions for that matter claim to believe: For example, read this statement concerning the authority of the Scripture:

     "Following the examples of the orthodox fathers, receives and venerates with and equal affection of piety and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament-seeing that one God is the author of both…" Fourth Session, April 8, 1546 Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures.

     So if we ask those who wrote this whether they believe that the Bible is the word of God, they would answer with a resounding yes. Yet these very professors also declare in the same sentence:

     "all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament-seeing that one God is the author of both-as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic church by a continuous succession."

     This is from the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 1563. This Council of Trent also declares:

     "And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema."

     The Council of Trent looks very truthful in this statement concerning justification by faith:

     "The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; "

     At first this would seem very harmonious with what we believe, and without further explication we could join hand in hand with these professors. This is the problem. We do not seek for this further clarification because of the tolerance of those who desire "unity" and shun any discussion that might sound divisive or harsh. The same Council of Trent says:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

     Again, words of comfort to those adherents of the glorious doctrines of grace. But now we shall see the devious and destructive nature of the invention of a word as an apparent icon of righteousness:

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

     I do not mean to emphasize the Council of Trent, but I do wish to show you that definitions of terms are vitally important, and that we should not settle for the profession of modern Christendom concerning the words grace and faith and the cross. Before I continue with an examination of the true beliefs of Arminius, I would like to show just a few other problems with the Council of Trent. Notice the "Apostolic" Creedal flavor of the following:

     "that the Symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church makes use of,--as being that principle wherein all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agree, and that firm and alone foundation against which the gates of hell shall never prevail, --be expressed in the very same words in which it is read in all the churches. Which Symbol is as follows: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made: who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from the heavens, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man: crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered and was buried; and he rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures; and he ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right and of the Father ; and again he will come with glory to judge the living and the dead; of whose kingdom there shall be no end: and in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and the giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is adored and glorified; who spoke by the prophets and one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

     So then, as we ponder these statements, how "apostolic" are they?:
:
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

     It is abundantly clear that the definitions are altered. Yet as you have seen, if we merely relied upon their profession:

     "The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom:"

we would be wholly united with them. I would also urge you to remember the Council's statements as we turn to our present subject:

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

Now consider these statements of the Council concerning the Mass, as this will lead into the subject of two crosses:

CANON VIII.--If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

     At this point I would emphasize that if you were to ask a Roman Catholic whether Jesus Christ died on the cross in the place of sinners, he would answer yes, emphatically. But as you can see, that cross and christ is far from the cross and Christ of Scripture; and here we turn to the cross of Arminianism.

     Feathers are ruffled when we begin to denounce the cross of Arminianism because we so desire to affirm that enormous movement in which many of us were raised as a valid communicator of the true Gospel and cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, please allow me to show you the subtle blasphemies of Arminius and his adherents and their highest antagonism against the God of heaven.

     Encyclopaedia.com presents Arminius in this light:

     Arminius, Jacobus 1560-1609, Dutch Reformed theologian; b. Jacob Harmenson.  In 1603 he became a professor at the Univ. of Leiden; there he developed his teaching, called Arminianism. As fully formulated after his death by Simon Episcopus, it opposed the Calvinist doctrine of predestination by asserting the compatibility of divine sovereignty and human freedom and by denying the irresistibility of God's grace. The teaching was later adopted by John Wesley.

     Arminius had these things to say about grace, or at least his definition of grace as it relates to God and His will:     

     "It is certain that God willeth or determineth many things which He would not, did not some act of man's will go before it." Arminius., Antip., p. 211

     No wonder John Owen described those who believe such as:  "Never did any men more eagerly endeavour the erecting of this Babel than the Armnians, the modern blinded patrons of human self-sufficiency." John Owen, A Display of Arminianism, Ch.1 page 11.

Arminius also says:  "He (God) would have all men to be saved; but, compelled with the stubborn and incorrigible malice of some, He will have them to miss it." Antip., fol. 195.

     A group known as the Remonstrants formulated the doctrine of Arminius after his death called the Remonstrance. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian church defines the nature of this doctrinal statement:

     "…Under five headings it sets out in positive form the leading Arminian doctrines on salvation. Among the Calvinistic doctrines repudiated were both the Supralapsarian and Sublapsarian (Infra) forms of predestination, the doctrine that Christ died only for the elect, and the belief that the saints could not fall from grace."

     The Remonstrance Apologetics state:  "It is false to say that election is confirmed from everlasting." "Men may make their election void and frustrate."

     Arminius says:  "God would have all men to be saved, but, compelled with the stubborn malice of some, He changeth His purpose, and will have them to perish,"

     Remonstrance says:  "As men may change themselves from believers to unbelievers, so God's determination concerning them changeth."

     And:  "God wisheth and desireth some good things, which yet come not to pass." Confession Chapt 2 sect. 9

     But the Bible says: 
     Job 23:13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.
     Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

     The Remonstrants in blatant blasphemy say:  "…the hope and expectation of God is deceived by man" Remon. Script. Synod Chapt. 5

     Arminius lays the groundwork for the Remonstrants when he spews:  "That God hath determined future contingent things unto either part I abominate, hate, and curse, as false, absure, and leading us on unto blasphemy."

     Concerning sovereignty the Remonstrants profess:  "God's sustaining of all things is not an affirmative act of His power, but a negative act of his will."

     But the Bible says:  Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

     Arminius contradicts:  "The providence of God doth not determine the free-will of man to this or that particular, or to one part of the contradiction."

     Again, the Remonstrants contend for their god:  "But some one may here object that thus God faileth of His intention, doth not attain the end at which He aims. We answer, This we grant."

     To which statement Owen replies:  "And here, methinks, they place God in a most unhappy condition, by affirming that they are often damned whom He would have to be saved, though He desires their salvation with a most vehement desire and natural affection, -such, I think, as crows have to the good of their young ones." Display pg.50

     Here we should stop to consider: they declare precisely what neo-evangelicalism professes today concerning the fact that God wants men to be save who will ultimately be separated from Him forever. In this we see even the greatest danger of subtlety and the wickedness of twisting the terms grace and the cross. Yet the majority of professing Calvinists say we are wrong for declaring modern Arminianism to be another gospel and those who cling to such a gospel as falling under the category as those (according to Paul) accursed from Christ. Again,

     Owen correctly analyzes the goal of Arminianism:  "The eternal predestination of Almighty God, that fountain of all spiritual blessings, of all the effects of God's love derived unto us through Christ, the demolishing of this rock of our salvation hath been the chief endeavour of all the patrons of human self-sufficiency." Display pg. 53

     In the clearest terms, the Remonstrants profess the logical end of their foundation, and that with sobering consistency:  "There are three orders of believers and repenters in the Scripture, whereof some are beginners, others having continued for a time,. And some perseverants. The first two orders are chosen truly, but not absolutely, but only for a time, - so long as they will remains as they are; the third are chosen finally an peremptorily: for this act of God is either continued or interrupted, according as we fulfil the condition."

     Owen describes this:  "…The Arminian way, bringing in their idol with shouts, and preparing his throne, by claiming the cause of their predestination to be in themselves." Display pg. 57

     Do we not understand the gravity of the error of Arminianism. Yet "Calvinists" even accuse us of judging men's souls and yet claim to love the great Puritan divines such as Owen and Calvin. Such who claim to love these men are hypocrites having never studied what these men believe. But God forbid they would ever accuse John Owen of being a judgmental person who "needed a good spanking." So how would those hypocrites and deceptive "Calvinists" respond to this statement of Owen concerning Arminianism?

     "The sum of their doctrine in this particular is laid down by one of ours in a tract entitled "God’s Love to Mankind," etc.; a book full of palpable ignorance, gross sophistry, and abominable blasphemy, whose author seems to have proposed nothing unto himself but to rake all the dunghills of a few of the most invective Arminians, and to collect the most filthy scum and pollution of their railings to cast upon the truth of God; and, under I know not what self-coined pretences, belch out odious blasphemies against His holy name." Display pg. 61

     In describing the weakness of the love of God, Arminius says:  "God loveth none precisely to eternal life." Display pg. 62

     How is the above statement different from modern day Arminianism? They affirm the same by saying that God loves every single man who ever lived and yet many of those whom God loves will be separated from His presence forever. Unsaved men have a greater love for their money which is left behind when they die than God has for the inhabitants of the world if such love is that which God claims.

     Arminius says:  "No such will can be ascribed unto God, whereby he so would have any to be saved, that from thence His salvation should be sure and infallible."

     The Remonstrants exclaim:  "We profess roundly that faith is considered by God as a condition preceding election, and not flowing as a fruit thereof."

     Owen replies:  "They have, by degrees, erected a Babylonish tower in the room thereof, whose top they would persuade us, shall reach unto heaven, First, therefore, the foundation-stones they bring forth, crying, 'Hail, hail,' unto them, and pitch them on the sandy, rotten ground of our own natures."

     From here we lead to just a brief analysis of the implications of the universal atonement.

     The Remonstrants imagine:  "Why, then, the efficacy of the death of Christ depends wholly on us…True, it cannot be otherwise." Remonstrant Apologetics.

     Consider the relation to our Arminian contemporaries, the majority of whom, doubtless, know nothing of the Remonstrants:  "The impetration of salvation for all, by the death of Christ, is nothing but the obtaining of a possibility thereof; that God, without wronging His justice, may open unto them a gate of mercy, to be entered on some condition."

     I personally would profess that, though the doctrines of conditional election and partial depravity lay the groundwork for Arminianism, by far the greatest blasphemy is the doctrine of universal atonement. For in the work of Christ on the cross we find all the character of God displayed in one glorious act-These attributes of love, wrath, jealousy, justice, mercy, longsuffering and power. Yet, if the outpouring of these attributes were exhibited in full strength upon the cross and those for whom they were displayed are separated for eternity, then Jesus Christ is the most miserable and failing god of all religions.

     In the universal atonement we see a God who is utterly unjust in pouring out wrath both upon the Son and the people. We see a love that does not save, a mercy that leaves men separated from Him, and certainly a power that is nothing more than impotent. The chief end for which Christ was to be glorified is nothing more than a charade:

     Philippians 2:5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: {6} Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: {7} But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: {8} And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. {9} Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: {10} That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; {11} And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

     I remind you of these statements by Calvinists concerning the treason against God in universal atonement:

     Spurgeon:

     "But art thou a proud, boastful, free-willer, saying, "I will repent and believe whenever I choose; I have as good a right to be saved as anybody, for I do my duty as well as others, and I shall doubtless get my reward"---If you are claiming a universal atonement, which is to be received at the option of man’s will, go and claim it, and you will be disappointed in your claim. You will find God will not deal with you on that ground at all, but will say, "Get thee hence, I never knew thee." He that cometh not to me through the Son, cometh not at all." I believe the man who is not willing to submit to the electing love and the sovereign grace of God, has great reason to question whether he is a Christian at all, for the spirit that kicks against that is the spirit of the unhumbled, unrenewed heart. May God take away the enmity out of your heart to His own precious truth, and reconcile you to it, and then reconcile you to Himself through the blood of His Son, which is the bond and seal of the Everlasting Covenant. Amen!" "The Blood of the Covenant"

     "Methinks I heard some one say, " Do you mean us to understand this atonement that you have now preached as being a literal fact?" I say, most solemnly, I do. There are in the world many theories of atonement; but I can not see any atonement in any one, except in this doctrine of substitution. Many divines say that Christ did something when He died that enabled God to be just and yet the Justifier of the ungodly. What that something is they do not tell us. They believe in an atonement made for every body; but then, their atonement is just this. They believe that Judas was atoned for just as much as Peter; they believe that the damned in hell were as much an object of Jesus Christ’s satisfaction as the saved in heaven; and though they do not say it in proper words, yet they must mean it, for it is a fair inference, that in the case of multitudes, Christ died in vain, for He died for them all, they say, and yet so ineffectual was His dying for them all, that though he died for them they are damned afterward. Now such an atonement I despise-- I reject it I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching a limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it. Why, my brethren, if we were only so far atoned for by the death of Christ that any one of us might afterward save himself, Christ’s atonement were not worth a farthing, for there is no man of us that can save himself- no, not under the gospel; for if I am to be saved by faith, if that faith is to be my own act, unassisted by the Holy Spirit, I am as unable to save myself by faith as to save myself by my good works.

     And after all, though men call this a limited atonement, it is as effectual as their own fallacious and rotten redemptions can pretend to be, But do you know the limit of it?.....The Arminian says Christ died for him; and then, poor man, he has but small consolation therefrom, for he says, "Ah! Christ died for me; that does not prove much. It only proves I may be saved if I mind what I am after. I may perhaps forget myself; I may run into sin and I may perish. Christ has done a good deal for me. but not quite enough, unless I do something.: But the man who receives the Bible as it is, he says, "Christ died for me, then my eternal life is sure. I know," says he, "that Christ cannot be punished in a man’s stead, and the man be punished afterwards. No; my Saviour died, and now I am free from every demand of God’s vengeance, and I can walk through this world secure; no thunder can smite me, and I can die absolutely certain that for me there is no flame of hell, and no pit digged; for Christ, my ransom, suffered in my stead, and, therefore, am I clean delivered. Oh! glorious doctrine! I would wish to die preaching it! -Charles Spurgeon from the sermon, "The Death of Christ"

     "For a man to come shuffling into a college, pretending that he holds his mind open to any form of truth, and that he is eminently receptive, but has not settled in his mind such things as whether God has an election of grace, or whether He loves His people to the end, seems to me to be a perfect monstrosity. ‘not a novice," says the apostle; yet a man who has not made up his mind on such points as these, is confessedly and egregiously "a novice," and ought to be relegated to the catechism class till he has learned the first truths of the gospel." Lectures to My Students.

     Finally John Owen expresses his opposition to Arminianism:

     In response to the Arminian lie, ‘God intends that for many who will never attain it.’ "And here , methinks, they place God in a most unhappy condition, by affirming that they are often damned whom He would have to be saved, though He desires their salvation with a most vehement desire and natural affection,--such, I think, as crows have to the food of their young ones." A Display of Arminianism from the Death of Death in the Death of Christ-Chapter 5 pg.50

     In response to the Arminian Damascen’s lie, ‘things whereof we have any power, not to depend on providence, but on our own freewill;’ "an opinion fitter for a hog of the Epicurus herd than for a scholar in the school of Christ." A Display of Arminianism from the Death of Death in the Death of Christ-Chapter 4 pg.36

     In response to Arminians making divisions to create different types of election, "and to these quavering divisions they accommodate their doctrine, or rather they purposely invented them to make their errors unintelligible." A Display of Arminianism from the Death of Death in the Death of Christ-Chapter 6 pg.56

     Regarding the inability to understand the certainty of one determined election of all events. "Nay, the very nature of the thing itself doth so demonstratively evince it, that I wonder it can possibly be conceived under any other notion." A Display of Arminianism from the Death of Death in the Death of Christ-Chapter 6 pg.57

     Title to A Display of Arminianism: A Discovery of the Old Pelagian Idol Free-Will, with the New Goddess Contingency, Advancing themselves into the throne of the God of Heaven, to the prejudice of His Grace, Providence, and Supreme Dominion over the Children of Men.

     Display of Arminianism: regarding Arminians: ... "nothing doth he more contend for than an independency of any supreme power, which might either help, hinder, or control him in his actions. This is that bitter root from whence have sprung all those heresies and wretched contentions which have troubled the church, concerning the power of man in working his own happiness, and his exemption from the over-ruling providence of Almighty God...the Arminians, the modern blinded patrons of human self-sufficiency. Volume 10 chapter one, pg.11 The Death of Christ.

     So then, supposed "Calvinists," steeped in ecumenism and the fear and justification of men's accuse this accurate portrayal of Arminianism as judgmental and harsh when pronounced by twentieth-century believers in true grace, but when it comes from John Owen, suddenly he is revered as a Puritan divine who was perhaps the greatest theologian since the Protestant Reformation. Spurgeon is praised as the greatest preacher who ever lived since the Reformation.

     Paul spoke of another gospel, another spirit, and another Jesus. Therefore we can conclude that since the god of Arminianism is another Jesus, his cross is another cross. Their cross is a cross that is insufficient to save from sin except the will of man actuate it. Regardless of their profession, they have not known the cross of Christ.
     I ask, how many crosses are there? Do you have the boldness to say one? Then is a cross that does not satisfy the wrath of God the true cross? Is a cross that allows double justice a holy cross? Is a cross that leaves men condemned in their sin even though the penalty was paid for their sin an effective cross? Is a love that gives itself for all men, yet leaves them under condemnation an everlasting love? Is this the extent of God's love and sacrifice? Is this the magnitude of His love?

     Do you have the boldness to answer those questions honestly? Will you lose your friends? Or will you hate them by remaining silent as you justify their idolatry while they may very well be under condemnation?

     Are you bold enough to proclaim the tragedy and heinousness of the sin of universal atonement? Are you bold enough to declare it as another gospel. Or will you, in your pride and arrogance, justify the sin of those who trodden underfoot the blood of the cross and announce by your sovereignty that they have believed the true cross and the true Gospel and thus are recipients of His glorious kingdom? Who is really being judgmental?

     Galatians 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
     1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.