A Rebuttal to Tony Miano’s Attacks on Mark Cahill, Jesse Morrell, Kerrigan Skelly, and other Non-Calvinists

CLICK HERE

For FREE Christian Books by Jesse Morrell

 

A REBUTTAL TO TONY MIANO’S CRITICISM OF MARK CAHILL

AND HIS ATTACKS ON JESSE MORRELL, KERRIGAN SKELLY,

AND OTHER NON-CALVINISTS

By Jesse Morrell

www.OpenAirOutreach.com

THE FALSE THEOLOGY OF CALVINISM

                There is a major problem in the church today with the spreading of a theology known as Calvinism. Calvinism is a religion founded by John Calvin. A “Calvinist” as they call themselves, is a follower of the teachings of John Calvin. Calvin was in the habit of excommunicating or burning at the stake any one who opposed or contradicted him or his theology. Geneva was not a popular tourist attraction during the reign of Calvin. Many of his followers today seem to be of the same persecuting spirit. I have had Calvinists say to me, “What happened to the good old days, when we used to burn heretics like you.” And also, “My only hope is that you will castrate yourself.” Calvinists typically seem to have this very un-Christ-like attitude when dealing with those who deny their doctrines and often show anything but the fruit of the spirit when debating with them.

               John Calvin learned much of his theology from Augustine, who was a student of Platonic and Gnostic teachings. Augustine also severely persecuted his theological opponents. All throughout church history, the doctrines of Augustinianism and Calvinism have caused great controversy and division within the body of Christ.

               Old School Calvinism or Reformed Theology denies orthodox Christian doctrines like:

               1. Man’s free will to obey or disobey God, which is the basis of man’s responsibility and accountability (Gen. 4:6-7; Deut. 30:19; Josh. 24:15; Jer. 38:20; Eze. 18:30; Acts 17:30-31);

               Augustine said, “By Adam’s transgression, the freedom of’ the human will has been completely lost.”[1]

               Augustine said, “By the greatness of the first sin, we have lost the freewill to love God.” [2]

               Augustine said, “by subverting the rectitude in which he was created, he is followed with the punishment of not being able to do right” and “the freedom to abstain from sin has been lost as a punishment of sin.”[3]

               Martin Luther said that “the law demands of men what they cannot do…”[4]

               Martin Luther said, “For if man has lost his freedom, and is forced to serve sin, and cannot will good, what conclusion can more justly be drawn concerning him, than that he sins and wills evil necessarily?”[5]

               2. That each individual is responsible and accountable for their own sins committed in their own life, and will not be damned for the sins of anyone else (Lev. 18:29; Deut. 24:16; 2 Kng. 14:6; 2 Chron. 25:4; Eze. 18:2-6; Eze. 18:20; Jer. 17:10; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:5-6; Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Cor. 11:15; 1 Pet. 1:17; Rev. 20:11-12; Rev. 22:12);

               John Calvin stated, “Adam drew all his posterity with himself, by his fall, into eternal damnation.”[6]

               3. Christ died for everyone (Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Jn. 2:2), and His unlimited atonement does not make salvation automatic for anyone, but available for everyone (Jn. 3:14-17; 12:46; Acts 10:43; Rom. 10:11; Rev. 22:17), and that those for whom Christ died can still perish (Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Pet. 2:1);

               Custance said, “No man can be held accountable for a debt that has already been paid for on his behalf to the satisfaction of the offended party. But a double jeopardy, a duplication of indebtedness, is indeed involved if the non-elect are to be punished for sins which the Lord Jesus Christ has already endured punishment.”[7]

               Boettner said, “For God to have laid the sins of all men on Christ would mean that as regards to the lost He would be punishing their sins twice, once in Christ, and then again in them.”[8]

               Wayne Grudem said, “Reformed people argue that if Christ’s death actually paid for the sins of every person who ever lived, then there is no penalty left for anyone to pay, and it necessarily follows that all people will be saved, without exception. For God could not condemn to eternal punishment anyone whose sins are already paid for: that would be demanding double payment, and it would therefore be unjust.”[9]

               Joshua Williamson said, “If Christ died for everyone, everyone would be saved.”[10]

               4. The universal benevolence or love of God, which wants all sinners to repent and be saved (Eze. 33:11; John 3:14-17; 2 Pet. 3:19);

               John Calvin said, “not only was the destruction of the ungodly foreknown, but the ungodly themselves have been created for the specific purpose of perishing.”[11]

               John Calvin said, “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.”[12]

               John Calvin said, “At this point in particular the flesh rages when it hears that the predestination to death of those who perish is referred to the will of God.”[13]

               Alan Kurschner said, “God desires that his sheep are saved. God desires that his people are saved. He does not desire that every single individual who has ever lived, live in glory with him forever. If that were the case, we have an incompetent, unhappy, and impotent God.”[14]

               Matthew McMahon said, “I reject anything which makes God a cosmic bell-hop tending to the commands and demands of sinful men as another gospel. I reject anything which removes God’s sovereignty to place man as the Sovereign as another gospel. I reject anything which denies the sovereign decrees of God and His electing grace to put salvation into the hands of sinful men as another gospel. I reject anything which denies man’s total depravity and exalts his fictitious free will as another gospel. I reject anything which places the perseverance of man to glory in the incapable hands of a sinful man as another gospel. I reject anything which endeavors to treat God as the great Grandfather in the sky beckoning and pleading with man to be saved as changing the true God into a pitiable wimp.”[15]

               Erwin Lutzer said, “The revealed will was that all men be saved, but the hidden will was that the greater part of mankind be damned.”[16]

               John Calvin said, “His secret counsel, by which He determined to convert none but His elect.”[17]

               John MacArthur, comments: “His patience is not so He can save all of them, but so that He can receive all of His own…”[18]

               5. The conditional security of believers or the possibility of falling away from the faith (Matt. 24:13; Jn. 15:6; Acts 11:23; Acts 13:43; Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:13; Rom. 11:20-21; 1 Cor. 9:27; Heb. 2:1-3; Heb. 10:26-31; 2 Pet. 2:20-21);

               Martin Luther said, “Be a sinner and sin boldly… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”[19]

               Westminster Confession of Faith said, “They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.”[20]

               6. Man’s role, responsibility, and choice to cooperate with God in regeneration or in the changing of his heart (Deut. 10:16; Eze. 18:30-32; Ps. 78:8; Ps. 95:8; Heb. 3:15; Act 7:51; 17:30-31; Jas. 4:8; Col. 3:9-10; Eph. 4:22, 24; 1 Tim. 4:16);

               Martin Luther said, “I say that man… when he is re-created does and endeavors nothing towards his perseverance in that kingdom; but the Spirit alone works both blessings in us, regenerating us, and preserving us when regenerate, without ourselves…”[21]

               A. W. Pink said, “The new birth is solely the work of God the Spirit and man has no part in it.”[22]

               7. That there is deliverance available from all sin in Jesus Christ, or the possibility of overcoming sin in this life by the grace of God (Matt. 1:21; Jn. 8:36; Rom. 6:18, 20, 22; 8:2; 1 Cor. 10:13; 1 Thes. 3:13; 1 Thes. 5:23; Titus 2:11-12; Jude 1:24; 1 Tim. 6:14; 1 Jn. 1:9; 3:9).

               The Westminster Catechism says, “No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but does daily break them in word, thought, and deed.”[23]

               8. That God is not the author of sin, nor the sovereign cause of its entrance into the world (Gen. 1:31; 6:5-6; 1 Sam. 15:22; Jer. 19:5, 32:35; Isa. 5:4; Zeph. 3:5; Ecc. 7:29; Matt. 6:10; Lk. 7:30; 1 Cor. 14:33; Heb. 1:9).

               Martin Luther said, “Since, therefore, God moves and does all in all, He necessarily moves and does all in Satan and the wicked man…”[24]

               Martin Luther said, “God worketh all things in all men even wickedness in the wicked…”[25]

               John Calvin said, “Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God.”[26]

               See also the article, “Is God the Author of Sin?“

               There are many other orthodox doctrines which are taught in the Scriptures and which were held by all of the Early Church which are denied by Augustinian and Reformed Theology, but the above is sufficient for this article.

               As much as Calvinism claims to be orthodox, its doctrines are utterly opposed to the doctrines of the Early Church Fathers before Augustine, and they have more in common with the heretical teachings of the Gnostics and Manicheans.

               See the article, “Did He Corrupt The Church With Gnostic Doctrine?“

               Sadly, many Calvinist groups function as a cult today, claiming exclusively that Calvinism is Christianity, that their doctrine of T.U.L.I.P. is the gospel itself, and that anyone who disagrees with their doctrine is a “heretic,” “false teacher,” or “false convert.” They are quick to break fellowship with, and falsely accuse, any Christian that contradicts their own theology.

               I have always found it interesting that these groups will hail John Calvin as a hero, but will label Charles Finney a heretic. Charles Finney was America’s greatest revivalist, who lead a quarter of a million people to the Lord. The vast majority of his converts stayed in the faith until their dying day, unlike other evangelists like D. L. Moody or Billy Graham, who’s converts mostly fell away. John Calvin on the other hand had excommunicated and even killed countless individuals. Calvinists overlook this and often seek to justify it, while they are quick to condemn Finney because he used “altar calls.” I can supply story after story of Finney winning sinners to Christ, but Calvinists have been unable to provide for me even a single story of John Calvin ever personally leading a sinner to Jesus. There are plenty of stories of John Calvin burning sinners at the stake, but not a single one of him leading souls to Christ like Charles Finney did. Yet, they exalt Calvin as a hero and criticize Finney for calling sinners to repentance at the altar.

               See also the article, “The Secret of Success In The Ministry of Charles G. Finney by Gordon C. Olson“

               Tony Miano is a modern day Calvinist. He is a very staunch Calvinist whom history has shown to be quick to call other Christians heretics or false converts if they contradict his theology of Calvinism. Over the past few years, Tony Miano has called myself (Jesse Morrell), and Kerrigan Skelly “heretics” on various websites. For years he has been attacking us publicly, when he has never even attempted to have a private conversation with us about doctrine. Even recently, a woman told me, “Tony called me a heretic back when I was enjoying hearing from him.”[27] I am sure that there are many other stories of people out there of Christians who Tony Miano has accused of heresy for contradicting Calvinism.

               Many Calvinists, like Tony Miano, will quote this from Charles Spurgeon, ““And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. 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.”[28]

               Many Calvinists argue that Calvinism is the gospel itself, so if you don’t believe in Calvinism then you do not believe in the gospel. The logical conclusion of this view is that only Calvinists are Christians. Anyone who contradicts Calvinism is a heretic. This is certainly what happened at the Synod of Dort, when the Arminians were on trial and condemned when their doctrines didn’t line up with Calvinism. Hugo Grotius for example was imprisoned after the Synod of Dort and with the help of his wife, escaped from prison and fled from the persecution of Calvinists against Arminians.

               The reason that I am writing this article against Tony Miano, and in defense of my fellow Christians like Mark Cahill and Kerrigan Skelly, is because “we must stand in opposition to those who cause division in the Body of Christ (Titus 3:10-11) and who bear false witness against fellow Christians” as Tony Miano himself has said.

               Mark Cahill is a man of God who has been sharing the true gospel of Jesus Christ on the streets for many many years. Mark believes what th Bible says, that God is loving and wants everyone to be saved. I have been personally blessed by Mark Cahill. He is the author of popular book, “One Thing You Can’t Do In Heaven” which has helped to equip tens of thousands of Christians for sharing the gospel. I remember once, when I ordered some materials from Way of the Master, they sent me a copy of Mark Cahill’s book with the order. Ray Comfort even said that Mark Cahill is one of the only people that makes him feel lukewarm. Mark always had a good relationship with Way of the Master, until Tony Miano came along. Tony Miano started teaching and spreading Calvinist doctrine, which Mark Cahill has rightly recognized as false teaching. The consequence is that Tony Miano ruined the good relationship that Mark Cahill had with Way of the Master.

               Tony Miano was recently fired from his job at The Way of the Master, for financial reasons. And it appears that he is now trying to get attention by publicly criticizing other well known ministers of the gospel like Mark Cahill.  It seems to be a strategy of some people to draw more attention to themselves by attacking others who are more well known than themselves. Calvinists typically try to advance their own doctrine, by opposing everyone else’s, which is a reason why many Calvinists like to have “apologetic” ministries, where they label every other group a cult and every other doctrine heresy.

TONY MIANO’S & CARM’S SLANDEROUS ATTACK ON CHRISTIANS

               Just recently, Tony Miano wrote an attacking article against Mark Cahill, with the help of Matt Slick, which was posted on the CARM website. CARM stands for Christian Apologetic Research Ministries, but in reality it is a Calvinism Apologetic Research Ministries. CARM is a website publicly known for its relatively poor scholarship in critiquing opposing theologies.

               For example, Matt Slick of CARM wrote that “Pelagianism…. taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God.  In other words, a person’s free will is totally capable of choosing God and/or to do good or bad without the aid of Divine intervention.”[29] This is an example, not of Pelagian heresy, but of Pelagian hearsay.

               I would suspect that Matt Slick learned about Pelagianism from its opponents, and not from actually reading the writings of the Pelagians. This is a common practice for Calvinists, but what if that is how their doctrine was treated? What if someone stated what Calvinism teaches, by stating the opponents? Augustine accused Pelagius of denying the grace of God, but this was an accusation not a fact.

               Had Matt Slick actually read some of the few writings that still exist today from the original Pelagians, he would have read in the Pelagian Statement of Faith submitted to the Pope: “We [Pelagians] maintain that men are the work of God, and that no one is forced unwillingly by His power either into evil or good, but that man does either good or ill of his own will; but that in a good work he is always assisted by God’s grace, while in evil he is incited by the suggestions of the devil.”[30]

               Pelagius himself said, “I anathematize the man who either thinks or says that the grace of God, whereby ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,’ is not necessary not only for ever hour and for every moment, but also for every act of our lives: and those who endeavor to dis-annul it deserve everlasting punishment.”[31]

               Pelagius said, “This grace we do not allow to consist only in the law but also in the help of God. God helps us through His teaching and revelation by opening the eyes of our heart, by pointing out to us the future so that we may not be preoccupied with the present, by uncovering the snares of the devil, by enlightening us with the manifold and ineffable gift of heavenly grace.”[32]

               Pelagius said, “God always aids by the help of his grace. God aids us by his doctrine and revelation, while he opens the eyes of our heart; while he shows us the future, that we may not be engrossed with the present; while he discloses the snares of the devil; while he illuminates us by the multiform and ineffable gift of heavenly grace. Does he who says this, appear to you to deny grace? Or does he appear to confess both divine grace and the freewill of man?”[33]

               Pelagius said in a letter to Innocent, “Behold, before your blessedness, this epistle clears me, in which we directly and simply say, that we have entire freewill to sin and not to sin, which, in all good works, is always assisted by divine aid. Let them read the letter which we wrote to that holy man, bishop Paulinus, nearly twelve years ago, which perhaps in three hundred lines supports nothing else but the grace and aid of God, and that we can do nothing at all of good without God. Let them also read the one we wrote to that sacred virgin of Christ, Demetrias, in the east, and they will find us so praising the nature of man, as that we may always add the aid of God’s grace. Let them likewise read my recent tract which we were lately compelled to put forth on freewill, and they will see how unjustly they glory in defaming us for denial of grace, who, through nearly the whole text of that work, perfectly and entirely profess both free will and grace.”[34]

               Pelagius taught that the freedom of the human will was not lost by the original sin of Adam, but that grace was necessary for man to rightly use his free will. He also taught that free will itself was a gracious gift given to us at Creation. He did not deny grace as necessary or as an aid for free will. The only grace he denied was Augustinian grace, which said that free will was lost by original sin and therefore man’s ability to obey needed to be restored by grace. However, one of the best Greek-English Lexicons, Thayer’s, defined grace as “divine influence upon the heart” which is precisely how Pelagius viewed grace in contradiction to Augustine.

               It was Augustine’s view of grace that was inconsistent with free will, not Pelagius’. As Augustine said, “I have tried hard to maintain the free choice of the human will, but the grace of God prevailed.”[35] Pelagius affirmed both the freedom of the will and the necessity for the grace of God, while Augustine denied the freedom of the will because of His mistaken view of grace.

               Matt Slick’s article on CARM about Pelagianism would be accurate if he changed the word “without” to the word “with.” It should read, ‘Pelagianism…. taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will with the grace of God.  In other words, a person’s free will is totally capable of choosing God and/or to do good or bad with the aid of Divine intervention.”

               This is why John Wesley said, “I verily believe, the real heresy of Pelagius was neither more nor less than this: The holding that Christians may, by the grace of God, (not without it; that I take to be a mere slander,) ‘go on to perfection;’ or, in other words, ‘fulfill the law of Christ.’”[36] And also “Who was Pelagius? By all I can pick up from ancient authors, I guess he was both a wise and a holy man.”[37]

               John Wesley said, “Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him… When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was,) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: There needed no other proof of any assertion, than Ipse dixit: “St. Augustine said it.”[38]

               On the issue of the freedom of the will, Pelagius was in perfect agreement with the Early Church while Augustine was in agreement with the heretical Gnostics:

               Dr Wiggers said, “All the fathers…agreed with the Pelagians, in attributing freedom of will to man in his present state.”[39]

               Episcopius said, “What is plainer than that the ancient divines, for three hundred years after Christ, those at least who flourished before St. Augustine, maintained the liberty of our will, or an indifference to two contrary things, free from all internal and external necessity!”[40]

               Regarding the term “free will,” John Calvin admitted “As to the Fathers, (if their authority weighs with us,) they have the term constantly in their mouths…”[41]

               Calvin said, “The Greek fathers above others” have taught “the power of the human will.”[42]

               Calvin said, “they have not been ashamed to make use of a much more arrogant expression calling man ‘free agent or self-manager,’ just as if man had a power to govern himself…”[43]

               Calvin also said, “The Latin fathers have always retained the word ‘free will’ as if man stood yet upright.”[44]

               Walter Arthur Copinger said, “All the Fathers are unanimous on the freedom of the human will…”[45]

               Lyman Beecher said, “the free will and natural ability of man were held by the whole church…”[46]

               Asa Mahan said that free will “was the doctrine of the primitive church for the first four or five centuries after the Bible was written, the church which received the ‘lively oracles’ directly from the hands of some of those by whom they were written, to wit: the writers of the New Testament. It should be borne in mind here, that at the time the sacred canon was completed, the doctrine of Necessity was held by the leading sects in the Jewish Church. It was also the fundamental article of the creed of all the sects in philosophy throughout the world, as well as of all the forms of heathenism then extant. If the doctrine of Necessity, as its advocates maintain, is the doctrine taught the church by inspired apostles and the writers of the New Testament, we should not fail to find, under such circumstances, the churches planted by them, rooted and grounded in this doctrine.”[47]

               Beausobre said, “…those ancient writers, in general, say that Manichaeans denied free-will. The reason is, that the Fathers believed, and maintained, against the Manichaeans, that whatever state man is in he has the command over his own actions, and has equally power to do good or evil.”[48]

               W. F. Hook said, “The Manichaeans so denied free will, as to hold a fatal necessity of sinning.”[49]

               Lyman Beecher said, “…the free will and natural ability of man were held by the whole church… natural inability was to that of the pagan philosophers, the Gnostic’s, and the Manichaeans.”[50]

               Other articles by Matt Slick on CARM on other topics are also examples of misunderstanding and misrepresentation, such as his articles on Open Theism, Moral Government Theology, Moral Government Atonement, etc. It seems to be a common practice of Calvinists to misrepresent the views of those that they oppose by creating a straw-man, as they often do with the theology of Charles Finney. This leads me to believe that they cannot refute the actual position of their theological opponents.

THE HYPOCRICY OF TONY MIANO

               In his article, Tony complains of “Mark Cahill’s Mistreatment of Christians”[51] for calling Calvinism heresy and for breaking fellowship with Calvinists, (2 Cor. 6:14; Eph. 5:11; Tit. 3:10).  Yet that is precisely how Tony has treated others Christians who disagree with his own theology. In fact, in the very same article he called Pastor Kerrigan Skelly a heretic, by stating that Kerrigan is a “Pelagian” which is “heresy.”[52] He wrote that Mark Cahill “Affiliates and/or associates with at least one known heretic (Kerrigan Skelly), as well as with at least one group (Jesus Crew) that is vehemently anti-Calvinism.”[53]

               Tony Miano complains that Mark Cahill calls “Christians” that believe in Calvinism as “heretics” but then goes and himself labels a Christian like Pastor Kerrigan Skelly a heretic! He even criticizes Mark Cahill for associating with a group that is “anti-Calvinism” as if it is wrong for him to associate with any group that is not pro-Calvinism. “Jesus Crew” is a group of Christians that has been spreading the biblical gospel for years, yet Tony Miano criticizes them for not being pro-Calvinist.

               And what is the theology of Mark Cahill that Tony Miano criticizes? Tony quotes Mark’s book, “The Watchmen” as saying, “You see, the wicked do have the ability to turn from their sinful ways. As a matter of fact, they are required to do so by God. How can God judge people that had no ability to repent and believe in Him? It is preposterous to think that.”[54]

               If Tony Miano is going to criticize Mark Cahill for believing this orthodox truth, then he is criticizing the entire Early Church for holding to the same truth!

               Clement of Rome (whom Paul endorsed in Philippians 4:3) said, “For  no  other  reason  does  God  punish  the  sinner  either  in  the present or in the future world, except because He knows that the sinner  was able  to  conquer  but  neglected  to  gain  the victory.”[55]

               Justin Martyr said, “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishment, chastisement, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is our own power. For if it is predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise and the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions – whatever they may be … for neither would a man be worthy of praise if he did not himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were created evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.”[56]

               Theodorite said, “For how can He punish [with endless torments] a nature which had no power to do good, but was bound in the hands of wickedness?”[57]

               Irenaeus said, “Those who do not do it [good] will receive the just judgment of God, because they had not worked good when they had it in their power to do so. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for they were created that way. Nor would the former be reprehensible, for that is how they were made. However, all men are of the same nature. They are all able to hold fast and to go what is good. On the other hand, they have the power to cast good from them and not to do it.”[58]

               Tertullian said, “No reward can be justly bestowed, no punishment can be justly inflicted, upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice.”[59]

               Will Tony Miano be so bold as to label all of the Christians in the Early Church before Augustine as “heretical Pelagians” for teaching and believing the Christian doctrine of free will in opposition to Calvinism? Was the Early Church full of nothing but “false converts” for the first 300 years of its existence, between Paul and Augustine?

               Consider also how Arminians have also held to the free agency of man:

               John Fletcher said, “As to the moral agency of man, Mr. Wesley thinks it cannot be denied upon the principles of common sense and civil government; much less upon those of natural and revealed religion; as nothing would be more absurd than to bind us by laws of a civil or spiritual nature; nothing more foolish than to propose to us punishments and rewards; and nothing more capricious than to inflict the one or bestow the other upon us; if we were not moral agents.”[60]

               Adam Clarke commented on Deuteronomy 11:26 and said, “If God had not put it in the power of this people either to obey or disobey; if they had not had a free will, over which they had complete authority, to use it either in the way of willing or nilling; could God, with any propriety, have given such precepts as these, sanctioned with such promises and threatenings? If they were not free agents, they could not be punished for disobedience, nor could they, in any sense of the word, have been rewardable for obedience. A Stone is not rewardable because, in obedience to the laws of gravitation, it always tends to the center; nor is it punishable be cause, in being removed from that center, in its tending or falling towards it again it takes away the life of a man. That God has given man a free, self-determining Will, which cannot be forced by any power but that which is omnipotent, and which God himself never will force, is declared in the most formal manner through the whole of the sacred writings. No argument can affect this, while the Bible is considered as a Divine revelation; no sophistry can explain away its evidence, as long as the accountableness of man for his conduct is admitted, and as long as the eternal bounds of moral good and evil remain, and the essential distinctions between vice and virtue exist.”[61]

               As a matter of fact, even teachers of “New School Calvinism” taught the freedom of the will, like Albert Barnes and Lyman Beecher. 

               Albert Barnes said, “Christianity does not charge on men crimes of which they are not guilty. It does not say, as I suppose, that the sinner is held to be personally answerable for the transgression of Adam, or of any other man; or that God has given a law which man has no power to obey. Such a charge, and such a requirement, would be most clearly unjust.”[62]

               Albert Barnes said, “What was it that made the government of Pharaoh tyrannical, but laying tasks on the Israelites which they had no power in any sense to obey, commanding them to make bricks without straw?… A man without limbs cannot be required to walk; without eyes cannot be required to see; without hands cannot be required to labor.”[63]

               Lyman Beecher said, “The implications of the Bible teach the free agency of man including a natural ability to obey, as the qualification for moral government, and the foundation of accountability. The directory precepts, the commands and prohibitions, the rewards and punishments, the exhortations, warnings, entreaties and expostulations, of the Bible, teach this; the oath of God’s preference that fallen man should obey rather than disobey, and the regrets andthe wonder of heaven at his obstinacy and unbelief, teach the same; and the punishment, executed not only for what he did do that was wrongm but because in place of this he did not do what was right,-because he did not turn, did not repent, did not believe,-all imply ability. That such implications are multiplied throughout the Bible, wil not be denied; that they do strongly imply capacity of right or of wrong choice, and are based on that supposition, is equally plain. But what would be thought of a human government that should address such language to stocks and stones, or to animals, or to machines moved by steam or water power? And why should they be addressed to man, if he has no more power to obey than these?”[64]

               Lyman Beecher said that “capacity, as the ground and measure of obligation, is expressly recognized as a fundamental principle of the government of God.  The law itself recognizes it, in demanding love with all the heart, soul, mind and strength.   The Gospel recognizes it, in the bestowment of talents upon every man according to his several ability, and the award of punishment for ability neglected; and by repelling as a slander the implication that God demands the performance of impossible service, reaping where he had not sowed, &c. Obligation is expressly graduated according to what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not,-much of him to whom mq.ch is given, and little of him to whom little is given. Accordingly, evangelical obedience is ever enjoined as a reasonable service, for  which, as   to  natural  power, every  man  is thoroughly furnished, and for the neglect of which he has no -excuse.”[65]

               Lyman Beecher said, “Whatever has been the wreck and ruin produced by the fall, the free agency originally conferred upon man, has not been knocked away… the righteous Governor of the world, has done no violence to these powers and faculties of man, on which His government rests…”[66]

               And let it be clear that a Reformed Synod and Calvinistic denomination declared Lyman Beecher’s views, stated above, as orthodox against the charge of heresy in 1835. If Calvinists and Arminians have agreed on this issue, why does Tony Miano label it as heresy?

               Will Tony Miano criticize his own Calvinist brethren as “heretical Pelagians” as well? It seems that labeling as “heresy” anything that contradicts their Calvinist doctrine is an intimidation tactic that they use to try to convert people to their views, or to scare people from contradicting Calvinist doctrine. In the days of Augustine and John Calvin, they would try to convert people to their theology with torture. They took literally Jesus word’s, “compel them to come in.” In our day, since torture is illegal, they use intimidation tactics like calling you a heretic. They especially resort to this type of name calling when they are unable to address and refute your arguments. I have been in countless discussions with Calvinists over the years. I calmly and rationally argue my point from the Scriptures, and time and time again when these Calvinists are unable to refute my arguments with reason and scripture, they simply resort to harsh and critical name calling. I am sure that many others can testify of this as well.

               Clearly, there is a definite double standard being used here. Calvinists want to be able to label others as heretics when others contradict their theology, but when someone labels Calvinism as heresy the Calvinists call for unity and claim unbiblical and unloving treatment toward Christians. One person just commented online saying, “What I think is unfair and hypocritical is the attack on Cahill for his anti-Calvinistic comments, yet not one word about MacArthur and Piper (both of whom I like) who have had very strong words against Arminianism.” That is a very good point. There are many well-known Calvinist teachers out there who have very harsh words for Arminians, but that is acceptable to men like Tony Miano and Matt Slick. It is only when Arminians have harsh words for Calvinism that they claim “unbiblical treatment of Christians.”

               Tony will even quote Charles Spurgeon, who said that Arminians were heretics and Calvinism was the gospel. Where is Tony Miano’s criticism and harsh words for Spurgeon, like he has for Mark Cahill?

               Tony Miano claims that Calvinism does not deny any of the essential Christian doctrines. Then he claims that Mark Cahill is making essentials out of non-essentials, when that is precisely what he has done in his own article.

               Tony Miano said that Mark Cahill, “Mistreats Christians in the following ways: Confuses non-essentials of the faith with essentials and thus brings wrong judgment against fellow believers.”[67] Tony said his goal “is to encourage Christian unity in the essentials and have charity for one another in those areas where we disagree.”[68] Tony claims that we should not divide over Calvinism and Arminianism, but then states Calvinist doctrines as essentials which many Arminians do not believe in.

               Tony Miano said, “The theological positions known as Calvinism and Arminianism are “mutually exclusive” in that the two systems oppose each other in debatable issues, but not in the essentials.”[69] Tony believes that we should not divide over Calvinism and Arminianism, that both are orthodox and both agree on the essentials. However, in his article he condemns a Christian Pastor like Kerrigan Skelly for holding to doctrines which Calvinists and Arminians have held to, and for denying doctrines which Calvinists and Arminians have also denied. It is my intention to prove this, by providing quotes from Calvinists and Arminians on those issues. I will show that Calvinists and Arminians have agreed, at times, on the issues that Tony Miano accuses us of heresy for.

               Tony Miano said, “Pelagianism is a 5th Century heresy condemned by all church councils, that denies Original Sin, the Imputed righteousness of Christ, and the federal headship of Adam.”[70] He also said, “Kerrigan Skelly is well known as one who denies the doctrine of Original Sin, the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, and the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Christ.”[71] And that Kerrigan Skelly is a “known heretic.”[72]

               So Tony has made original sin, the imputed righteousness of Christ, the federal headship of Adam, and even the Penal theory of the atonement as essential doctrines, and claimed that Kerrigan Skelly is a heretic for denying them. Yet, we are about to see that the Early Church did not teach the doctrine of original sin, many Arminians do not believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ, and even Calvinists have not historically believed in the Federal Headship of Adam! Nobody in the Early Church, not even Augustine, held to the Penal theory of the atonement. In fact, there have been Calvinists and Arminians throughout Church history that have denied the Penal Substitution theory of the atonement and have agreed on the Governmental Substitution theory. Even Augustine did not believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ. If these doctrines are essential and the denial of them are heretical, than Tony Miano has labeled the Early Church, Arminians, and his own Calvinists brethren as heretical! Even the “great Saint” Augustine falls under the category of heretic according to Tony Miano, who made his own personal doctrine an “essential.” Furthermore, Tony Miano claims to be “Reformed” and “Solo Scriptura” and yet he has appealed to the authority of Catholic councils! Let’s examine these issues one step at a time.

ORIGINAL SIN

               The doctrine of original sin has taken many different forms and has many different interpretations to different groups. In the Augustinian and Calvinistic theology, original sin is the doctrine that when Adam sinned, free will was lost and his nature became sinful, and all of his descendents inherit from him a sinful nature. For possessing this sinful nature, they are born sinful and under the wrath of God. Since free will was lost by original sin, men are born incapable of doing anything good and incapable of repenting of their sins and believing the gospel, until the natures of the elect is regenerated by the grace of God. Augustinianism also taught that sexual desire was a result of original sin and was not part of God’s original design, so that sexual desires are part of the corruption of our now sinful natures. Babies are born sinful because they are conceived through sex, whereas Christ was not sinful because no sex was involved in His conception. Furthermore, it teaches that because of Adam’s original sin, men are born dead in sin.

               Kerrigan Skelly and myself certainly do not deny that Adam was a real person, that he committed an original sin, and that Adam’s sin has negatively affected all mankind. Genesis gives a list of many effects and consequences of Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:14-24). In this sense, we do not deny original sin at all. We admit that Adam committed an original sin that has affected us all. We only deny the false notions that are commonly attached to the doctrine of “original sin,” like the idea that free will was lost, human nature became sinful, babies are born under God’s wrath, we existed in the loins of Adam, God holds us accountable for a sin we didn’t commit, etc.

               The Bible explicitly teaches that men are sinners “from their youth” (Gen. 8:21; Jer. 22:21; 32:30), The Hebrew word here means juvenile, not infancy, according to one of the most credible Hebrew-English Lexicons.[73] This should forever settle the question as to whether or not men are sinners from birth or from the age of accountability. The Bible declares that infants do not yet know right from wrong (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16), that they have not yet done any sin (Eze. 18:19-20; Rom. 9:11), and that they are morally “innocent” (2 Kin. 21:16; 24:4; Jer. 13:26-27; Ps. 106:37-38; Matt. 18:3). Since infants are without moral knowledge, they are without sin (Jn. 9:41; Rom. 9:11; Jas. 4:17), they have an excuse for their conduct (Rom. 1:20), and they are exempt from the wrath of God (Rom. 1:18). Moral obligation and accountability is proportionate to the moral knowledge a moral agent has (Matt. 10:15; Lk. 12:48). The Bible declares that all men, at the age of accountable, have chosen to be sinners (Gen. 6:12, Ex. 32:7, Deut. 9:12, Deut. 32:5, Jdg. 2:19, Hos. 9:9, Ps. 14:2-3, Isa. 53:6, Ecc. 7:29, Rom. 3:23, Rom. 5:12). Adam has had some contribution to our choice to becoming sinners, that is, his sin has effected us somehow and has had some connection to our own personal choice to become sinners (Rom. 5:12, 14; 19), though Paul never stated what that connection was. We ought not to add our own personal theories to the Scriptures when they are silent on that matter, as two of the greatest exegetical scripture expositors, Moses Stuart and Albert Barnes, said. Nevertheless, Paul explicitly taught that men choose to sin contrary to their nature, because sin is contrary to nature (Rom. 1:26) and that it is our nature to do good because the law of God is part of our nature (Rom. 2:14). This is because God is the author of our natures, since He forms us in the womb (Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Deut. 32:18; Isa. 27:11; 43:1; 43:7; 44:2; 44:24; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 26:10; 95:6; 127:3; 139:13-14, 16; Prov. 20:12; 26:10; Ecc. 7:29; 31:15; 35:10; Mal. 2:10; Acts 17:29; Rom. 9:20; Eph. 3:9; 4:6; Col. 1:16; Jn. 1:3).

               See also the article, “Are Babies Sinful or Innocent?” and “Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature?” for a good biblical response to this Augustinian doctrine.

               This doctrine, as it’s been stated, has been denied by the Christians of the Early Church, Arminians, and even certain Calvinists.

               Quotes from the Early Church against original sin as its been stated:

               Irenaeus said, “God has always preserved freedom and the power of self-government in man.”[74]

               Irenaeus said, “…man is possessed of free will from the beginning.”[75]

               Origen said, “…the faculty of free will is never taken away…”[76]

               Ignatius said, “If anyone is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.”[77]

               Origen said, “The Scriptures…emphasize the freedom of the will. They condemn those who sin, and approve those who do right… We are responsible for being bad and worthy of being cast outside. For it is not the nature in us that is the cause of the evil; rather, it is the voluntary choice that works evil.”[78]

               Tatian said that because of “freedom of choice… the bad man can be justly punished, having become depraved through his own fault.”[79]

               Clement of Alexandria said about sinners, “…their estrangement is the result of free choice.”[80]

               Theodore of Mopsuestia denied the concept “that men sin by nature, not by choice.”[81]

               Gregory of Nyssa said, “For that any one should become wicked, depends solely upon choice.”[82]

               Methodius said, “…the Divine Being is not by nature implicated in evils. Therefore our birth is not the cause of these things…”[83]

               Methodius  that men are “possessing free will, and not by nature evil…”[84]

               Methodius said, “…there is nothing evil by nature, but it is by use that evil things become such. So I say, says he, that man was made with free-will, not as if there were already evil in existence, which he had the power of choosing if he wished, but on account of his capacity of obeying or disobeying God. For this was the meaning of the gift of free will… and this alone is evil, namely, disobedience…”[85]

               Eusebius said, “The Creator of all things has impressed a natural law upon the soul of every man, as an assistant and ally in his conduct, pointing out to him the right way by this law; but, by the free liberty with which he is endowed, making the choice of what is best worthy of praise and acceptance, because he has acted rightly, not by force, but from his own free-will, when he had it in his power to act otherwise, As, again, making him who chooses what is worst, deserving of blame and punishment, as having by his own motion neglected the natural law, and becoming the origin and fountain of wickedness, and misusing himself, not from any extraneous necessity, but from free will and judgment. The fault is in him who chooses, not in God. For God is has not made nature or the substance of the soul bad; for he who is good can make nothing but what is good. Everything is good which is according to nature. Every rational soul has naturally a good free-will, formed for the choice of what is good. But when a man acts wrongly, nature is not to be blamed; for what is wrong, takes place not according to nature, but contrary to nature, it being the work of choice, and not of nature!”[86]

               Will Tony Miano and CARM be consistent and label these leaders in the Early Church as heretics?

               Quotes from Christians authors in the Church of England against the original sin view of human nature, as it’s been stated:

               C. S. Lewis said, “Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the “laws of nature” we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong the Law of Nature, they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as falling stones are governed by the law of gravitation and chemicals by chemical laws, so the creature called man also had his law – with this great difference, that the stone couldn’t choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it. They called it Law of Nature because they thought that every one knew it by nature… First, human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and can’t really get rid of it…They know the Law of Nature; they break it.”[87]

               Joseph Butler said, “vice is contrary to the nature and reason of things… it is a violation or breaking in upon our own nature… virtue consists in following, and vice in deviating from it… man is born to virtue, that it consists in following nature, and that vice is more contrary to this nature than tortures or death…”[88]

               Joseph Butler said in regards to the “frame of man,” “Appetites, passions, affections, and the principles of reflection, considered merely as the several parts of our inward nature, do not at all give us an idea of the system of constitution of this nature; because the constitution is formed by somewhat not yet taken into consideration, namely by the relation, which these several parts have to each other; the chief of which is the authority of reflection or conscience. It is from considering the relations which the several appetites and passions in the inward frame hae to each other, and above all the supremacy of reflection or conscience, that we get the idea of the system or constitution of human nature; and from the idea itself it will as fully appear, that this our nature, i.e. constitution, is adapted to virtue…”[89]

               Joseph Butler said, “A machine is inanimate and passive, but we are agents. Our constitution is put in our own power; we are charged with it, and therefore are accountable for any disorder or violation of it. Thus nothing can possibly be more contrary to nature than vice; meaning by nature, not only the several parts of our internal frame, but also the constitution of it… vice was contrary to the higher and better part of our nature… virtue consisted in following nature…”[90]

               Joseph Butler said, “virtue consists in following man’s nature, and vice in deviating from it… From man’s nature or constitution, as thus explained, it is shown that virtue is following nature; i.e., it is obedience to the principles of action which that nature is composed in due subjection to the laws which subsist among them… There is in man a conscience or reflex sense, whereby we survey ourselves and pass sentence on our acts.”[91]

               Joseph Butler said, “There is a principle of reflection in men, by which they distinguish between, approve and disapprove their own actions. We are plainly constituted such sort of creatures… This principle in men, by which he approves or disapproves his heart, temper, and actions, is conscience… And that this faculty tends to restrain men from dong mischief to each other, and leads them to do good, is too manifest to need being insisted upon… It cannot possibly be denied that there is this principle of reflection or conscience in human nature.”[92]

               Joseph Butler said, “Morality, or the course God intends men to take, may be known from our nature… Ancient writers and Scripture concur nevertheless in affirming a ‘natural law,’ and in describing vice as deviation from that law… This law of nature is conscience, with the prerogative of supremacy over other principles… The constitution of human nature, thus explained, gives rules of virtue, and creates an obligation to obey them… A constitution is violated, not only by removing parts but by giving to the lower the supremacy; hence the saying that injustice is contrary to nature… Whence man, having in his make parts lower and supreme, is a law to himself.”[93]

               Joseph Butler said, “If the real nature of any creature leads him and is adopted to such and such purposes only, or more than to any other; this is a reason to believe the Author of that nature intended it for those purposes… A man can as little doubt whether his eyes were given him to see with, as he can doubt of the truth of the science of optics deduced from ocular experiments. And allowing the inward felling, shame; a man can as little doubt wheather it was given him to prevent his doing shameful actions, as he can doubt whether his eyes were given him to guide his steps.”[94]

               Joseph Butler said, “The Apostle asserts, that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the law… it is spoken of as good, as that by which they acted, or might have acted virtuously. What that is in man by which he is naturally a law to himself, is explained in the following words: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another… there is a superior principle of reflection or conscience in every man, which distinguishes between the internal principles of his heart, as well as his external actions; which passes judgment upon himself and them; pronounces determinately some actions to be in themselves just, right, good; others to be in themselves evil, wrong, unjust. Which, without being consulted, without being advised with, magisterially exerts itself, and approves or condemns him the doer of them accordingly… It is by this faculty, natural to man, that he is a moral agent, that he is a law to himself; but this faculty, I say, not to be considered merely as a principle in his heart, which is to have some influence as well as others; but considered as a faculty in kind and in nature supremely over all others, and which bears its own authority of being so… This gives us a further view of the nature of man; shows us what course of life we were made for… that this faculty was placed within to be our proper governor; to direct and regular all under principles, passions, and motives of action. This is its right and office: thus sacred is its authority. And how often soever men violate and rebelliously refuse to submit to it…”[95]

               Quotes from Arminians against original sin, as it’s been stated:

               Leonard Ravenhill said, “God will not penalize me for Adam’s sin. God will not penalize Adam for my sin; but He will penalize each of us for our own sin.”[96]

               L. D. McCabe said, “The Scriptures nowhere teach that we are guilty of the sin of Adam, or that we are punished therefore.”[97]

               Paris Reidhead said, “Are people in trouble spiritually because they inherit some spiritual defect from their parents or grandparents? No. They are in trouble because when they reach the age of accountability they deliberately turn their own way – they commit their will to the principle and practice of pleasing themselves as the end of their being. That is sin.”[98]

               A. W. Tozer said, “…men are not lost because of what someone did thousands of years ago; they are lost because they sin individually and in person. We will never be judged for Adam’s sin, but for our own. For our own sins we are and must remain fully responsible.”[99]

               John Fletcher said, “All our damnation is of ourselves, through our avoidable unfaithfulness . . . everyone shall die for his own avoidable iniquity.”[100]

               Asa Mahan said, “The next dogma deserving attention is the position, that mankind derived from our first progenitor a corrupt nature, which renders obedience to the commands of God impossible, and disobedience necessary, and that for the mere existence of this nature, men ‘deserve God’s wrath and curse, not only in this world, but in that which is to come.’ If the above dogma is true, it is demonstrably evident, that this corrupt nature comes into existence without knowledge, choice, or agency of the creature, who for its existence is pronounced deserving of, and ‘bound over to the wrath of God.’ Equally evident is it, that this corrupt nature exists as the result of the direct agency of God. He proclaims himself the maker of ‘every soul of man.’ As its Maker, He must have imparted to that soul the constitution or nature which it actually possesses. It does not help the matter at all, to say, that this nature is derived from our progenitor: for the laws of generation, by which this corrupt nature is derived from that progenitor, are sustained and continued by God himself… If, then, the above dogma is true, man in the first place, is held as deserving of eternal punishment for that which exists wholly independent of his knowledge, choice or agency, in any sense, direct or indirect, He is also held responsible for the result, not of his own agency, but for that which results from the agency of God.”[101]

               Will Tony Miano and CARM be consistent and label these Arminians as heretics?

               Quotes from New School Calvinists against original sin, as it’s been stated:

               Dr. Nathanael Emmons said, “Nor can we suppose that Adam made men sinners by conveying to them a morally corrupt nature. Moral corruption is essentially different from natural corruption. The latter belongs to the body, but the former belongs to the mind. Adam undoubtedly conveyed to his posterity a corrupt body, or a body subject to wounds, bruises and putrefying sores. But such a body could not corrupt the mind, or render it morally depraved. There is no morally corrupt nature distinct from free, voluntary, sinful exercises. Adam had no such nature, and consequently could convey no such nature to his posterity. But even supposing he had a morally corrupt nature, distinct from his free, voluntary, sinful exercises, it must have belonged to his soul, and not to his body. And if it belonged to his soul, he could not convey it to his posterity, who derive their souls immediately from the fountain of being. God is the father of our spirits. The soul is not transmitted from father to son by natural generation. The soul is spiritual; and what is spiritual is indivisible, is incapable of propagation. Adam could not convey any part of his soul to his next immediate offspring, without conveying the whole. It is, therefore, as contrary to reason as to Scripture, to suppose that Adam’s posterity derived their souls from him. And if they did not derive their souls from him, they could not derive from him a morally corrupt nature, if he really possessed such a nature himself.”[102]

               Albert Barnes said, “This is the great, and just, and glorious principle of the divine administration; a principle stated expressly in opposition to the charge that the innocent are punished for the crimes of the guilty; and designed forever to free the divine administration from that accusation. It would be impossible in stronger language to state the principle.”[103]

               Albert Barnes said, “…men are not to be represented as to blame, or as ill-deserving, for a sin committed long before they were born, and that they are not to be called on to repent of it”[104]

               Will Tony Miano and CARM be willing to call their own Calvinist brethren “heretics” for these statements regarding the original sin of Adam? And let it be known that Albert Barnes and New School Theology was declared orthodox by a Calvinist council and a Calvinistic denomination for stating these views, against the charge of heresy.[105]

               There have been Calvinists and Arminians who have both agreed that men become sinners at the age of accountability by their own free choice. If the Early Church, Calvinists, and Arminians have agreed on this issue, why does Tony Miano label it as heresy?

THE IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST

               The doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ teaches that when Christ obeyed the law, he obeyed it for us. He fulfilled our moral obligations on our behalf, or vicariously, so that we do not have to fulfill them ourselves. It teaches that the atonement of Jesus Christ was not enough for our justification, but Christ’s works of the law must be added to the atonement. It denies that we can be justified purely by grace and teaches that we must have a perfect or flawless record of sinless obedience in order to be justified. It teaches justification purely in the legal sense, as opposed to the gracious sense. Furthermore, it teaches that when God looks upon believers that sin, God doesn’t see their sin, instead He see’s the perfect imputed righteousness instead. This is contrary to many passages in the Bible (Ps. 33:13-15; Prov. 15:3; Eze. 8:12; 9:9; Jer. 32:19; Job 34:21; Mal. 2:17; Rom. 3:24; 4:6-8; Heb. 4:13; Rev 2:2, 2:9; 2:13; 2:19; 3:1; 3:8; 3:15).

               The Early Church did not teach the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ:

               There is not even a hint of evidence to believe that the Early Church believed in the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ, not even Augustine. If Tony Miano is going to make the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ an “essential doctrine” than he has denied that the Early Church and even Augustine himself is a Christian. How can the doctrine of imputed righteousness of Christ be an “essential” to the faith, according to Calvinists like Tony Miano, when their own theological hero Augustine did not believe it? I challenge anyone to find a person teaching the doctrine of the “imputed righteousness of Christ” before Martin Luther. Tony says that Mark Cahill should not call those who hold to Reformed Theology heretics, when he himself in effect is calling one of the founders of Reformed Theology a heretic.

               Calvinists who have denied the imputed righteousness of Christ:

               Albert Barnes said, “It is not that his righteousness becomes ours. This is not true; and there is no intelligible sense in which that can be understood. But it is God’s plan for pardoning sin, and for treating us as if we had not committed it; that is, adopting us as his children, and admitting us to heaven, on the ground of what the Lord Jesus has done in our stead… But if the doctrine of the Scripture was, that the entire righteousness of Christ was set over to them, was really and truly theirs, and was transferred to them in any sense, with what propriety could the apostle say, that God justified the ungodly?… the whole scope and design of the Psalm is to show the blessedness of the man who is forgiven, and those sins are not charged on him, but who is freed from the punishment due to his sins. Being thus pardoned, he is treated as a righteous man.”[106]

               Arminians who have denied the imputed righteousness of Christ:

               John Wesley said, “We do not find it expressly affirmed in Scripture, that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to any…”[107]

               John Wesley said, “The Righteousness of Christ is an expression which I do not find in the Bible… The righteousness of God is an expression which I do find there. I believe this means, first, The Mercy of God… I believe this expression means, secondly, God’s method of justifying sinners…”[108]

               Regarding the phrase, “The imputed righteousness of Christ” Wesley said, “I cannot find it in the Bible. If any one can, he has better eyes than I: and I wish he would show me where it is.”[109]

               John Wesley said, “It is nowhere stated in Scripture that Christ’s personal righteousness is imputed to us. Not a text can be found which contains any enunciation of the doctrine.”[110]

               John Wesley said that the Calvinist doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ is “a blow to the root, the root of all holiness, all true religion…Hereby Christ is stabbed in the house of his friends, of those who make the largest professions of loving Him; the whole design of His death, namely, to destroy the work of the devil, being overthrown at a stroke. For wherever this doctrine is cordially received, it makes no place for holiness.”[111]

               Asbury Lowrey said, “This passage [Rom. 4:5-8] deserves special attention, as it explains all those text that seem to favor, and have been construed to support the theory of the imputation of Christ’s active and passive righteousness to the sinner. Here it is manifest that justification, imputation of righteousness, forgiving iniquities, covering sins, and the non-imputation of sin, are phrases substantially of the same import, and decide positively that the Scripture view of the great doctrine under consideration, is an actual deliverance from the guilt and penalty of sin: from which it follows, that the phrases so often occurring in the writings of Paul – the righteousness of God and of Christ – must mean God’s righteous method of justifying the ungodly, through the atonement and by the instrumentality of faith – a method that upholds the rectitude of the Divine character, at the same time that it offers a full and free pardon to the sinner.”[112]

               Charles Finney said, “The doctrine of a literal imputation of Christ’s obedience or righteousness is supported by those who hold it, by such passages as the following: Rom. iv. 5-8.—”But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputed righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” But here justification is represented only as consisting in forgiveness of sin, or in pardon and acceptance. Again, 2 Cor. v. 19, 21. “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Here again the apostle is teaching only his much-loved doctrine of justification by faith, in the sense that upon condition or in consideration of the death and mediatorial interference and work of Christ, penitent believers in Christ are forgiven and rewarded as if they were righteous.”[113]

               William Booth said, “Another mistaken view of the benefits flowing out of the sacrifice of Christ, although it does not directly refer to the Savior’s death, is closely connected with it; this is known as the doctrine of “imputed righteousness.” Jesus Christ, this notion says, by voluntarily placing Himself under the Law to which man was subject, rendering a perfect obedience to that Law, and sealing that obedience with His own Blood, thereby not only did purchase the forgiveness of sin for those whom He redeemed, but merited for us through His obedience a perfect righteousness; clothed in this His people will appear at the Judgment Bar, and it will constitute not only a preparation for Heaven but a right of entrance there. This doctrine declares that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to those who believe on His name, not only to make up for their own unrighteousness, but to create a righteousness which should be regarded as their own.  Though they have not obeyed the Law, Christ has obeyed it for them, and therefore they are entitled to just the same blessings as though they had obeyed it themselves. This, I need hardly say, is a mistaken notion, seeing that one being cannot, in this sense, obey the Law for another.  Every creature in Heaven and on earth is placed under that Law of Benevolence which claims all the love and service he is able to render, according to the capacity of his nature – whether it be that of an Angel, of a man, or of a little child. In becoming a man Jesus Christ voluntarily placed Himself on the same level, in this respect, as Peter and John; that is to say, the Law required from Him, as truly and really as it did from them, all the love and service which His powers enabled Him to render.  The extent of the Savior’s capacity determined the extent of His obligation.  Having an infinite capacity He was under obligation to love and serve in an infinite degree.”[114]

               Will Tony Miano or Matt Slick with CARM be so bold as to accuse men like John Wesley and William Booth as heretics? Will they go as far as to claim that the Methodist Church and the Salvation Army are not true “Christian” organizations? If they make the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ “essential” then they have to conclude that.

               If the Early Church, some Calvinists, and Arminians have agreed on this issue, why does Tony Miano label it as heresy? Again, let it be known that Albert Barnes was declared orthodox by a Reformed council and a Calvinistic denomination for stating his views on this matter, against the charge of heresy.

THE FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM

               The doctrine of the Federal Headship of Adam is a type of original sin doctrine, which states that Adam acted as our represented and therefore His sin is imputed to us. As our represented, he acted on our behalf and therefore we are guilty of his original sin. This doctrine states that the sin of the guilty is imputed to the innocent, and thereby they become guilty. It does not teach that we existed or acted in Adam, and therefore His sin is imputed to us, but that His sin is imputed to us even though we had no involvement and gave no consent to Adam’s sin.

               I find it strange that Tony Miano would make this doctrine which, in contrasted with the age of Christianity, is a relatively young doctrine. None of the Early Church believed this doctrine, in fact, none of the Early Reformers believed this doctrine. The doctrine of John Calvin himself was not that Adam was our federal head who acted as our representative, whose sin is imputed to all of his posterity. Calvin’s doctrine was that we actually existed in Adam, in his loins or genitals, and therefore his sin was our sin. He expressly denied that the sin of another was imputed to us, but stated that Adam’s sin is our sin because we had a personal identity or actual existence in Him. This was also the doctrine of Augustine, that we literally “sinned in Adam” because we literally existed in Him. This was also the doctrine of the Westminster Catachism. The Westminster Catachism states that we sinned “in Adam” and not that Adam’s sin is imputed to us. Jonathon Edwards also believed that we sinned in Adam and not that the sin of the guilty is imputed to the innocent.

               Albert Barnes was a new school Calvinist who was accused of heresy for denying the “federal and representative character of Adam.” He was acquitted of heresy charges and declared orthodox by a Reformed council and a Calvinistic denomination. He was accused of heresy for saying, “Christianity does not charge on men crimes of which they are not guilty. It does not say, as I suppose, that the sinner is held to be personally answerable for the transgression of Adam, or of any other man.” In his defense he said, “It is not denied that this language varies from the statements which are often made on the subject, and from the opinion which has been entertained by many men; and it is admitted that it does not accord with that used on the same subject in the Confession of Faith, and in other standards of doctrine. The main difference is, that it is difficult to affix any clear and definite meaning to the expression, ‘We sinned in him, and fell with him.’ It is manifest, so far as it is capable of interpretation, that it is intended to convey the idea, not that the sin of Adam is imputed to us, or set over to our account; but that there was a personal identity constituted between Adam and his posterity, so that it was really our act, and ours only, after all, that was chargeable to us. This was the idea of Edwards. The notion of imputing sin is an invention of modern times.”[115]

               For example, a Calvinist like Lord Coke said, “…no one is punished for the sin of another…”[116] That is why the Westminster Catachism says, “we sinned in him, and fell with him.”[117] Traditional Calvinism, or the original doctrine of Reformed Theology, said that we are punished for Adam’s sin because Adam’s sin is our sin, since we were his sperm, not that the sin of another is imputed to us.

               Augustine, who did not know Greek, read Jerome’s Latin translation of the New Testament which added “in Adam” to Romans 5:12. That mistranslation read, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned in Adam.” The Latin version that Augustine read added “in Adam” which was not in the Greek. Consequently, Augustine taught that we existed and acted in Adam and John Calvin, who got his theology from Augustine, taught this doctrine.

               John Calvin said, “And this liableness to punishment,” says he, “arises not from the delinquency of another, neque est alieni delicti— for when it is said that the sin of Adam renders us obnoxious to the divine judgment, it is not to be understood as if we, though innocent, were undeservedly loaded with the guilt of his sin. Wherefore Augustine, though he frequently calls it the sin of another, the more carefully to indicate its transmission to us by propagation, yet at the same time he also asserts it properly to belong to each individual, proprium unicuique.”[118]

               John Calvin who said, “we all sinned before we were born…”[119]

               John Calvin said, “Even before we see the light of day, we are in God’s sight impure and sinful…”[120]

               John Calvin said, “And therefore,” he continues, “infants themselves, as they bring their condemnation into the world with them, are rendered obnoxious to punishment by their own sinfulness, not by the sinfulness of another, non alieno, sed suo ipsorum vitio sunt obstricti.”[121]

               “Adam’s sin is imputed to us because it is ours. For God doth not reckon a thing to be ours, which is not so; for God’s justice doth not punish men for a sin which is in no way theirs. As if a person that has the plague infects others, they die by their own plague, and not by that of another.”[122]

               Jonathon Edwards said “The sin of the apostasy is not theirs merely because God imputes it to them, but it is truly and properly theirs, and on that ground God imputes it to them.”[123]

               Jonathon Edwards said, “God in every step of his proceeding with Adam, looked on his posterity as being one with him. This will naturally follow on the supposition of there being a constituted oneness or identity of Adam and his posterity in the affair.”[124]

               Albert Barnes comments, “Edwards is supposed, therefore, to have held the notion that there was a constituted identity between Adam and us; in such a way that we are held answerable for the original guilt as being ours; that it was not made ours by imputation, but being ours by the identity; or being properly ours, in the same sense as the guilt of A. B. in childhood, is the guilt of A. B. in manhood, it is justly chargeable on us; and this is what is meant by imputation. This is believed to have been the original structure of Calvinism—this the doctrine of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith.”[125]

               It should be evident why Calvinism has changed his theology over the years on this issue. If we literally existed in Adam and therefore sinned with Him because we were “in his loins,” than we would be guilty of all the sins of all our ancestors, not just Adam’s. It would make up praiseworthy for the righteousness of Noah, since we would have existed in his loins as well. And all of this would be contrary to the explicit word of God in Ezekiel 18, that says the son does not bear the iniquity of the father but the soul that sinneth it shall die.

               Gordon C. Olson said that “the Federal Headship theory” was “developed by Cocceius (1603-1669) and more fully elaborated by Turretin (1623-1687). Under the Covenant of Works, Adam was the federal head of all mankind so his sin and its consequences is legally imputed to all. This somewhat replaced the organic or natural relationship theory of guilt for Adam’s sin advanced by Augustine (354-430).”[126]

               How strange it for Tony Miano to make the doctrine of the imputed sin of Adam, or Adam’s Federal Headship, an “essential” Christian doctrine! By doing so, he had unknowingly accused the entire Early Church, Augustine, John Calvin, Jonathon Edwards, and even the Westminster Catechism with heresy! Classic Calvinists did not teach that the sin of the guilty was imputed to the innocent, or that Adam’s sin was imputed to anyone, but rather that we actually existed in the genitals of Adam or in his loins and consequently participated with Adam in original sin. It would have been good for Tony Miano to learn the history of Calvinism better and to learn the theological distinction between Federal Headship and Seminal Identity, before he went around trying to teach “essential” doctrines of Calvinism or Christianity.

THE PENAL SUBSTITUTION THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT

               The Penal Substitution theory of the atonement originated with a Catholic theology named St. Anselm (1033-1109). It was further developed by Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-11530, Luther (1483-1546); Calvin (1509-1564). This doctrine states that our sins were imputed to Jesus Christ on the cross and he consequently bore the punishment that those sins deserve. Those for whom Christ died and therefore saved by justice, as it would be unjust for God to punish the same sins twice. Consequently this doctrine inevitably leads to the false doctrines of universalism or limited atonement. Martin Luther went as far as to teach that Christ became an actual sinner on the cross, when our sins were imputed to Him. And this theory of the atonement often says the cliché’ of, “Jesus paid our debt.”

               This atonement theory is contrary to the Scriptures which represent our punishment as eternal damnation (Matt. 25:46; 2 Thes. 1:9), and the atonement as a means through which our penalty can be justly remitted (Matt. 26;28; Rom. 3:24-25; Heb. 9:22). The Scriptures explicitly teach that Jesus died for all (Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Jn. 2:2), and that those for whom Christ died can still perish (Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Pet. 2:1), which could not be true if Jesus was punished for their sins. The Scriptures also explicitly teach that Jesus’ character never changed but that He was without spot or blemish (Heb. 9:14; 13:8). And the Bible declares that God forgives us our debt, which cannot be true if our debt has been paid (Matt. 6:12; Lk. 7:42).

               See also the article, “Man’s Repentance and Christ’s Atonement” and also, “William Booth on the Doctrine of the Governmental Atonement“

               The Early Church denied the Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement:

               Even the Reformers hero Augustine did not believe in penal substitution, but rather taught that the atonement was a ransom paid to Satan. As a matter of fact, the CARM website has an article on the Ransom theory of the atonement which states, “This theory was developed by Origen (a.d. 185-254), and it advocated that Satan held people captive as a victor in war. This theory, which was also held by Augustine, advocated that because Satan held people captive, a ransom had to be paid, not to God, but to Satan.”[127] This CARM article, which states that Augustine did not believe in penal substitution but in the ransom theory, said “The ransom theory of the atonement is false.”[128]

               Calvinism hails Augustine as a great hero of their faith, but if penal substitution is an “essential” as Tony Miano claims, than Tony Miano has labeled Augustine as a heretic. It stands to reason that if Kerrigan Skelly is a “known heretic” because he “denies…. the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Christ,” than Augustine must be a heretic as well for not believing in this so-called “essential.” Will Tony Miano be consistent and say that Augustine was a heretic, or will he change his mind about Penal Substitution being an “essential” and the heretical status of Kerrigan for denying it?

               It should also be added that while nobody in the Early Church held to the Penal Substitutionary Theory of the atonement, not everyone in the EarlyChurch held to the Ransom Theory of the atonement, or a ransom being paid to Satan. Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390) for example, taught that the atonement was necessary because of the moral government of God. He said, “Is it not plain that the Father received the ransom, not because He himself required or needed it, but for the sake of the Divine government of the universe, and because man must be sanctified through the incarnation of the son of God?”[129]

               This brings us to the next point:

               Arminians who denied the Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement:

               Since Arminianism teaches that the atonement was made for everyone, but not everyone is saved by the atonement but even those whom Christ died for can perish, the penal substitution theory of the atonement has been rejected by many Arminians throughout church history because of its inevitable and logical conclusion is either universalism or limited atonement. One well known Arminian and disciple of Arminius, Hugo Grotius, systematized the Governmental Theory of the atonement, which has been a common atonement view throughout Arminianism.

               John Miley said, “The soteriology of Wesleyan Arminianism, taken as a whole, excludes the Satisfaction theory, and requires the Governmental as the only theory consistent with its doctrines.”[130]

               John Miley said, “If, in the obligation of an absolute retributive justice the Father must inflict merited punishment upon sin and if in the atonement he inflicted such punishment upon his Son as the substitute for sinners-then he does not remit the penalty. No dialectics can identify such an infliction with remission. And where there is no remission of penalty there can be no grace of forgiveness. Hence, the doctrine of Satisfaction does not admit the grace of the Father in forgiveness; which fact of grace, however, is clearly given in the Scriptures.”[131]

               Asbury Lowrey said, “The atonement does not signify the payment of a debt, in the sense that would represent the world, in their unredeemed condition, as insolvent debtors, and God as a creditor. This view destroys the gracious character of salvation, and reduces it to a transaction of sheer justice. If the sinner simply owed a debt to Heaven, which Christ fully discharged for him, then his release from all liability to punishment and his introduction into heaven might be demanded on the ground of equitable and inalienable right…”[132]

               William Booth said, “The Scriptures teach that Christ on the Cross, in virtue of the dignity of His person, the voluntariness of His offering, and the greatness of His sufferings did make and present, on behalf of poor sinners, a sacrifice of infinite value. And that this sacrifice, by showing all worlds the terrible evil of the sin humanity had committed, and the importance of the law humanity had broken, did make it possible for the love and pity of God to flow out to humanity by forgiving all those who repent and return in confidence to Him, enabling Him to be just and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.”[133]

               William Booth said, “You will sometimes hear people talk about the finished work of Christ. What is meant by it?… That Christ, when He died on the Cross, put Himself in the place of the sinner and bore the exact amount of punishment which he deserved, thus actually paying the debt that the sinner owed to Divine justice. And that if the sinner will only believe this, he is for ever free from the claims of the law, and can never be brought into condemnation either here or hereafter…Is this so?… We think not…. If it were so, if Christ did literally pay the sinner’s debt, in this sense, God cannot justly demand payment twice and consequently no one will be sent to Hell, and all will be saved… If a debt is paid, it is paid, and the sinner’s unbelief does not in any way affect the fact. If I owe a woman £5, and some one pays it for me, my creditors cannot sue me for the sum. I am all right, seeing the debt is paid, whether I believe it or no… Any one can see that if all the sinner’s debt has been paid, all the sin of unbelief must have been paid also, otherwise how can his past unbelief be forgiven, and if all his unbelief has been atoned or paid for, how can he be sent to hell for that, any more than any other sin?”[134]

               William Booth said, “Now, God’s heart yearned over man in his transgression, prompting Him to desire man’s deliverance from the consequences of that transgression. How was this deliverance to be effected? Something must be done which would make a similar impression upon the mind of man as to the importance of keeping the Law and the evil of breaking it as the infliction of the penalty due would have done; and which would at the same time awaken in him a sense of the shame and guilt of his transgression, and a desire to cease from his disobedience. This was done by the life and death of Jesus Christ, so that now every sinner who will, on God’s terms, accept the deliverance provided for him, may go free. ”[135]

               William Booth said, “The Atonement was not necessary to create compassion in the bosom of God for sin stricken man; it was the compassion of God that generated the Atonement.  The Sacrifice on the Cross was not offered to appease the angry wrath of the Father; it was in the compassionate bosom of the Father that the sacrifice of the Cross was born. Christ’s sacrifice was devised to maintain the dignity of the Law man had broken, and at the same time to rescue man from the penalty he had incurred.  So far, therefore, from the Atonement being a reflection on the justice and benevolence of God, it is perhaps the greatest evidence we possess both of His unswerving justice and of His boundless love.”[136]

               Catherine Booth said, “The Christ of God offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sin of man. The Divine law had been broken; the interests of the universe demanded that its righteousness should be maintained, therefore its penalty must be endured by the transgressor, or, in lieu of this, such compensation must be rendered as would satisfy the claims of justice, and render it expedient for God to pardon the guilty… Christ made such a sacrifice as rendered it possible for God to be just, and yet to pardon the sinner.”[137]

               Catherine Booth said, “His sacrifice is never represented in the Bible as having purchased or begotten the love of the Father, but only as having opened up a channel through which the love could flow out to His rebellious and prodigal children. The doctrine of the New Testament on this point is not that ‘God so hated the world that His own Son was compelled to die in order to appease His vengeance,’ as we fear has been too often represented, but that ‘God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son.”[138]

               A. W. Tozer said, “Universal atonement makes salvation universally available, but it does not make it universally effective toward the individual.”[139]

               A. W. Tozer said, “If atonement was made for all men, why are not all saved? The answer is that before redemption becomes effective toward the individual man there is an act which that man must do. That act is not one of merit, but of condition.”[140]

               Adam Clarke said, “a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own.”[141]

               Will Tony Miano and CARM be so bold and consistent as to declare that Arminianism, Methodism, Wesleyanism, and the Salvation Army is heretical for denying their Calvinistic doctrine of a limited and penal atonement? Will they be consistent and label John Wesley, William Booth, A. W. Tozer, and Adam Clarke as heretics?

               New School Calvinists who denied the Penal Substitution view of the atonement:

               New England Theology was a theological reformation within Calvinism. It was also called New Haven Theology, New School Theology, New Divinity, New School Calvinism, New School Presbyterianism, etc. It rejected the theory of a limited and penal atonement, and held to a general governmental atonement.

               Albert Barnes said, “Jesus was not sinful, or a sinner, in any sense. He did not so take human guilt upon him, that the words sinful and sinner could with any propriety be applied to him. They are not applied to him any way in the Bible; but there the language is undeviating. It is that in all senses he was holy and undefiled. And yet language is often used on this subject which is horrible and only a little short of blasphemy, as if he was guilty, and as if he was even the greatest sinner in the universe. I have heard language used which sent a chill of horror to my heart; and language may be found in the writings of those who hold the doctrine of imputation in the strictest sense, which is only a little short of blasphemy.”[142]

               Albert Barnes said, “His sufferings were in the place of the penalty, not the penalty itself. They were a substitution for the penalty, and were, therefore, strictly and properly vicarious, and were not the identical sufferings which the sinner would himself have endured. There are some things in the penalty of the Law, which the Lord Jesus did not endure, and which a substitute or a vicarious victim could not endure. Remorse of conscience is a part of the inflicted penalty of the Law, and will be a vital part of the sufferings of the sinner in hell – but the Lord Jesus did not endure that. Eternity of sufferings is an essential part of the penalty of the Law – but the Lord Jesus did not suffer forever. Thus, there are numerous sorrows connected with the consciousness of personal guilt, which the Lord Jesus did not and cannot endure.”[143]

               Albert Barnes said, “When a debt is paid, there is no forgiveness; when a penalty is endured, there is no mercy.”[144]

               Charles Finney said, “The atonement is a governmental expedient to sustain law without the execution of its penalty to the sinner.”[145]

               Charles Finney said, “That if, as their substitute, Christ suffered for them the full amount deserved by them, then justice has no claim upon them, since their debt is fully paid by the surety, and of course the principal is, in justice, discharged. And since it is undeniable that the atonement was made for the whole posterity of Adam, it must follow that the salvation of all men is secured upon the ground of ‘exact justice.”[146]

               Jonathon Edwards Jr. Said, “God could not have been just in justifying the believer, had not Christ been made a propitiation…If his death were not necessary, he died in vain…if it had been possible that the designs of God in the salvation of sinners should be accomplished without the death of Christ, Christ’s prayer, in this instance, would have been answered, and he would have been exempted from death. And since he was not exempted, we have clear evidence that his death was a matter of absolute necessity…Why is an atonement necessary in order to pardon the sinner? I answer, it is necessary on the same ground, and for the same reasons, as punishment would have been necessary, if there had been no atonement made. The ground of both is the same. The question then comes to this: Why would it have been necessary, if no atonement had been made, that punishment should be inflicted on the transgressors of the divine law? This, I suppose, would have been necessary, to maintain the authority of the divine law. If that be not maintained, but the law fall into contempt, the contempt will fall equally on the legislator himself; his authority will be despised and his government weakened. And as the contempt shall increase, which may be expected to increase, in proportion to the neglect of executing the law, the divine government will approach nearer and nearer dissolution, till at length it will be totally annihilated.”[147]

               Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “The atonement is the substitute for the punishment threatened in the law; and was designed to answer the same ends of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity of the divine moral government, and the consistency of the divine conduct in legislation and execution. By the atonement it appears that God is determined that his law shall be supported; that it shall not be despised or transgressed with impunity; and that it is an evil and a bitter thing to sin against God. The very idea of an atonement or satisfaction for sin, is something which, to the purposes of supporting the authority of the divine law, and the dignity and consistency of the divine government, is equivalent to the punishment of the sinner, according to the literal threatening of the law. That which answers these purposes being done, whatever it be, atonement is made, and the way is prepared for the dispensation of pardon. In any such case, God can be just and yet the justifier of the sinner.”[148]

               Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “The very idea of atonement is something done, which, to the purpose of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity and consistency of divine government and conduct, is fully equivalent to the curse of the law, and on the ground of which, the sinner may be saved from that curse…a less degree or duration of suffering endured by Christ the Son of God, may, on account of the infinite dignity and glory of his person, be an equivalent to the curse of the law endured by the sinner.”[149]

               Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “Retributive justice, therefore, is not at all satisfied by the death of Christ. But the general justice to the Deity and to the universe is satisfied. That is done by the death of Christ which supports the authority of the law, and renders it consistent with the glory of God, and the good of the whole system, to pardon the sinner.”[150]

               Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “If a third person pay a debt, there would be no grace exercised by the creditor in the discharging of the debtor; yet when a third person atones for a crime, by suffering in the stead of a criminal, there is entire grace in the discharge of the criminal, and retributive justice still allows him to be punished in his own person.”[151]

               Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “If our forgiveness be purchased, and the price of it be already paid, it seems to be a matter of debt, and not of grace.”[152]

               Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “If the atonement of Christ be considered as the payment of a debt, the release of the sinner seems not to be an act of grace, although the payment be made by Christ, and not by the sinner personally. Suppose any one of you, my auditors, owes a certain sum; he goes and pays the full sum himself personally. Doubtless all will agree, that the creditor, in this case, when he gives up the obligation, performs a mere act of justice, in which there is no grace at all….this…places the whole grace of the gospel in providing the Savior, not in the pardon of sin.”[153]

               Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “If Christ have, in the proper sense of the words, paid the debt which we owed to God, whether by a delegation from us or not; there can be no more grace in our discharge, than if we had paid it ourselves. But the fact is, that Christ has not, in the literal and proper sense, paid the debt for us…Payment of debt equally precludes grace, when made by a third person, as when made by the debtor himself…Grace is ever so opposed to justice, that they mutually limit each other. Wherever grace begins, justice ends; and wherever justice begins, grace ends.”[154]

               Caleb Burge said, “that as to the release of the debtor, it makes no difference who pays the debt. Whoever may make the payment, if the debt is paid, it can never be forgiven. If a creditor has received payment of his demand, he is under obligation to discharge his debtor, whether he paid the debt himself or some other person paid it for him. This must be evident to every candid mind. No creditor can refuse to give up an obligation after it is fully paid, without the most manifest injustice. But an act of grace is what no being can be under obligation to him who receives it to perform. If a being is under obligation to another to perform an act in his favor, that act must be an act of justice, and not of grace. Hence there can be no grace in giving up a demand which is fully satisfied.”[155]

               If there has been an agreement on the governmental atonement view, between Arminians and Calvinists, why does Tony Miano label it as heresy? And let it be known that a Reformed council and Calvinistic denomination declared Albert Barnes as orthodox for holding to the governmental theory of the atonement.

               Will Tony Miano, CARM, or Matt Slick accuse their Calvinist brethren like Albert Barnes and Jonathon Edwards Jr. of being heretics for not holding to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement view, which Tony Miano claims is essential?

               In fact, Matt Slick wrote an article on CARM called, “The error of the Moral Government view of the atonement”[156] where he terribly misrepresented and misunderstood this atonement view. He didn’t even quote from one single theologian who taught the Moral Government Atonement view, like Albert Barnes or Jonathon Edwards Jr., in order to state what the view actually teaches. This reflects a lack of scholarly and poor study on his part. In the conclusion of this article, which in my opinion was very poorly done, Matt Slick concludes that the Moral Government view of the atonement is “heretical.” While I would agree that his misrepresentation of the view is utterly false, if he is confident enough in his understanding of the doctrine to call is heretical, than he has just declared a vast majority of Arminianism and even some of his own Calvinist brethren like Albert Barnes and Jonathon Edwards Jr, as heretical! And they complain that Mark Cahill is divisive for calling Calvinism heresy??

               According to Matt Slick and CARM, the governmental theory of atonement is “heretical” and that would make Arminians like Hugo Grotius, William and Catherine Booth, and John Miley heretics. But it would also make New School Calvinists like Albert Barnes and Jonathon Edwards Jr. heretics as well! Yet they claim that we should not divide over Calvinism vs. Arminianism, that Arminians should not call Calvinists heretics, and then they go and call Arminians heretics and even some of their own Calvinists heretical! What a contradiction!

CHURCH COUNCILS AGAINST PELAGIUS

               On Tony Miano’s “Preacher’s Profile” he accuses myself, Kerrigan, and others of being heretical “Pelagian” open air preachers.[157] Calvinists have historically accused others of being “Pelagians” for teaching free will. John Wesley, John Fletcher, and Charles Finney have also been accused of being “Pelagians” by Calvinists. However, not everyone who believes in free will is necessary a Pelagian just because the Pelagians taught free will. All of the Early Church taught free will long before Pelagius was even born! The Pelagians also taught the doctrine of the Trinity, but that does not make every believer in the Trinity a “Pelagian.” Though Calvinists have accused me of being a “Pelagian,” I have never called myself one. There are things which the Pelagians taught that I agree with and things which they supposedly taught which I disagree with. I have never called myself anything other than a Christian, because I am a follower of Jesus Christ and His Word and not the traditions of any man. I do not follow Augustine, Pelagius, Calvin, Arminius, Wesley, or Finney and certainly do not name myself after them, by calling myself an Augustinian, Pelagian, Calvinist, Arminian, Wesleyan, or Finneyite. There are some things which all of these men taught which I can agree with, which I see from the Scriptures, but on other points I have Scriptural disagreements with them all. So while I have been called a “Pelagian” many times, I have always taken this as an accusation and a slander. Often in Calvinist circles, if you label someone a “Pelagian” this ends the debate. They do this when they can no longer refute or address your arguments.

               In his article on CARM, Tony Miano said, “Pelagianism is a 5th Century heresy condemned by all church councils.”[158] I always find it amazing when the so called “Reformed” and “Sola Scriptura” crowd will point to Catholic councils about Pelagius. Tony Miano is not very reformed if he appeals to Rome, and he is not sola scriptura if he appeals to councils.

               There were three councils that condemned Pelagianism; the Council of Ephesus in the year 431; the Council of Carthage in the year 418; and the Council of Orange in the year 529. This is because Pelagius was not invited nor present to defend himself but his opponents and adversaries stated his doctrine for him. When Pelagius was able to defend himself, the Council of Diospolis in 415 declared Pelagius orthodox. And Pope Zosimus also declared Pelagius’ orthodoxy in 417. He was always acquitted when present to clarify and defend his views. If these are our authorities to determine orthodoxy, do we accept the ones in favor of Pelagius or the ones against him?

               In addition, the Council of Orange and the Council of Carthage were not ecumenical councils. They did not consist of Bishops from the entire church, which mean that the rulings of the Councils were not universally affirmed by the Eastern and Western churches.

               If heresy is heresy because a council says so, or because of majority vote, Calvinism must be more heretical than Pelagianism was because there were more councils that condemned Calvinism than condemned Pelagianism. The Calvinist doctrines of predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace were condemned throughout history. Lucidus was condemned by the Council of Oral in 473, Council of Arles in 475, and Council of Orange in 529. And Gottschalk (Gotteschalcus) was condemned by the Council at Mentz in 848 and the Council of Chiersey (Quiercy) in 849. And what do Calvinists think of the Council of Constance in 1414 for John Huss, or the Council of Worms in 1521 for Martin Luther, or the Council of Trent in 1561 for the Protestants? Are these Councils not the voice of Orthodoxy as Ephesus and Carthage supposedly were?

               In fact, the Council of Orange that condemned Pelagianism also condemned the doctrines of Calvinism. If the council is authoritative in the former case, it must be equally authoritative in the latter as well. But if it was mistaken in the latter case, maybe it was mistaken in the former as well. Tony Miano essential condemns his own theology by appealing to church councils and assuming their authority.

               On the other hand, the Synod of Philadelphia declared Albert Barnes as orthodox in 1829, after he presented his case for rejecting limited atonement, natural inability, and the imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt to all his posterity. And Lyman Beecher was accused of heresy for his new school theology in 1835 but was acquitted by the Synod of Cincinatti. Though “New England Theology” or “New School Theology” was accused of being “Pelagian” by “Old School Calvinists,” it was nevertheless declared orthodox by Christian Synods.

               And just so that nobody feels left out, the Synod of Dort condemned the doctrines of Arminianism in 1618-1619. Certainly the Arminian camp should not, therefore, give credibility to councils which determine orthodoxy by popular vote. Clearly, neither the Arminian camp nor the Calvinist camp should appeal to church councils when debating theology, since each has had councils that has condemned their own theology.

               There has not been a general consensus that Pelagius was really the heretic that he was accused of being, by his theological opponents. As we saw earlier, there was a councils and a Pope that declared Pelagius orthodox, and even John Wesley believed Pelagius to be a holy man that was being slandered by Augustine.

               John Wesley said, “I verily believe, the real heresy of Pelagius was neither more nor less than this: The holding that Christians may, by the grace of God, (not without it; that I take to be a mere slander,) ‘go on to perfection;’ or, in other words, ‘fulfill the law of Christ.’”[159]

               John Wesley said, “Who was Pelagius? By all I can pick up from ancient authors, I guess he was both a wise and a holy man.”[160]

               John Wesley said, “Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him… When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was,) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: There needed no other proof of any assertion, than Ipse dixit: “St. Augustine said it.”[161]

               Besides, the same Catholic councils that condemned Pelagianism would also condemn anyone as a heretic who denies infant damnation, infant baptism, and baptismal regeneration. Does Tony Miano or Matt Slick deny any of these three? If so, the same councils that condemned Pelagius as a heretic would equally condemn Tony Miano and Matt Slick as heretics! By giving authority to these councils, they would be condemning themselves.

SINLESS PERFECTION

               On Tony Miano’s “Preacher’s Profile” he accuses myself, Kerrigan, and others of being heretical street preachers.[162] Besides the doctrines already mentioned above, he adds to the list, “teaching of sinless perfectionism.”[163] In Tony Miano’s criticism of Mark Cahill, he criticizes Kerrigan Skelly saying, “Kerrigan Skelly, who ascribes to Sinless Perfectionism, the error that a Christian can stop sinning”. However, we have never used this term “Sinless Perfection” to express what we believe. Often the term “sinless perfection” refers to the teaching that it is impossible for a Christian to sin, or that a person claims that they have never sinned. Certainly, neither of those positions are biblical and therefore we never used the term “sinless perfection” because those ideas are associated with it.

               A term that I have used is “Christian perfection” or the idea that a believer can have a loving and pure motive of heart. The scriptures teach that sin is transgression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4), the law of God is love (Matt. 23:37; Mk. 12:30-31), and therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10; Gal. 5:14; Jas 2:8). Love is a perfect motive. There is no sin in love. Therefore, if a person loves God supremely and loves their neighbor equally, they have what the Bible calls a “perfect heart.” It is possible to have a perfect heart in this life, as the scriptures say that David was perfect in heart (1 Kings 15:3), and God Himself that Job was a perfect man (Job 1:1; 1:8; 2:3). Jesus Christ came to make us holy (Isa. 53:5; Matt. 1:21; Jn. 1:29; Acts 3:26; Rom. 8:4; 2 Cor. 5:15; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:25-27; Col 1:21-23; Titus 2:11-12, 14; Heb. 9:26; 10:10; Tit. 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:24; 1 Jn. 1:7; 3:5; 3:8; 4:19), so to deny that we can live free from sin is to undermine His precious work and make His cross of none effect. Grace itself teaches us and influences us to live a holy life free from sin “in this present world” (Titus 2:11-12). We have the promise that we will never be tempted above what we are able to bear, so that we never have to sin (1 Cor. 10:13). The Scriptures tell us, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jn. 2:1). This verse teaches that it is possible for Christians not to sin, and that it is possible for Christians to sin. That is what I teach regarding sinning and not sinning, that we are capable of obedience and capable of disobedience.

               When I am preaching in the open air and a sinner asks me, “Well, don’t you sin?” My answer is always, “Not usually. Sin is not my lifestyle. Through Jesus I live a life of habitual obedience. If I sin, it is the exception and not the rule. That’s a result of the grace of God in my life. To my shame I have sinned in the past though I didn’t have to sin, and I am capable of sinning in the future, but I am not disobeying God right now. And my plan is to go the rest of my life without sinning. I have no plans to disobey God in the future.”

               Many Calvinists, like Tony Miano’s friend Lane Chaplin, say things about themselves like, “Just a sinner saved by God’s grace.”[164] How insulting this must be to the grace of God, to teach that grace doesn’t change your life or transform your character! How insulting this must be to the grace of God, to reduce it to nothing more than a license to sin! This type of “grace” that keeps people as sinners is not biblical grace. Paul said, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6:1-2). “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” (Rom. 6:14). “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.” (Tit. 2:11). We are to live holy by grace, not to remain sinful and be covered by grace. If we are saved by grace, we will stop sinning. If we haven’t been delivered from sin, we haven’t yet been “saved by grace.”

               Instead of saying, “I’m a sinner saved by grace,” we ought to say, “I’m a saint that’s been changed by grace.” The Bible says that Christians are not sinners (Ps. 66:18; Jn. 9:31; Rom. 5:8; 1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Cor. 6:14; 1 Tim. 1:9; Jas. 5:16; 1 Pet. 3:12; 4:18; 1 Jn. 3:22) unless they backslide (Jas. 4:8; 5:19-20). In fact, the Bible calls Christians “Saints” (Acts 9:13; 9:32; 9:41; 26:10; Rom. 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25-16; 15:26; 15:31; 16:2; 16:15; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:1-2; 14:33; 16:1; 16:15; 2 Cor. 1:1; 8:4; 9:1; 9:12; 13:13; Eph. 1:1; 1:15; 1:18; 2:19; 3:8; 3:18; 4:12; 5:3; 6:18; Php. 1:1; 4:22; Col. 1:2; 1:4; 1:12; 1:26; 1 Thes. 3:13; 2 Thes. 1:10; 1 Tim. 5:10; Phm. 1:5; 1:7; Heb. 6:10; 13:24; Jud. 1:3; 1:14; Rev. 5:8; 8:3-4; 11:18; 13:7; 13:10; 14:12; 15:3; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:8; 20:9). As saints, the Bible says that Christians are sanctified (Acts 20:32; 26:18; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11; Heb. 2:11; 10:10; 10:14; Gal. 5:24; Jud. 1:1).

               God told Abraham to be perfect (Gen. 17:1), God commanded Israel to have a perfect heart (1 Kings 8:61; 2 Chron. 19:9); God said David had a perfect heart for a majority of his life (1 Kings 15:3); Hezekiah had a perfect heart before God (2 Kings 20:3; Isaiah 38:3); Asa had a perfect heart all his days (2 Chron. 15:17); the prophets told Israel to turn from all their sins (Eze. 18;30), the parents of John the Baptist were righteous, blameless, and walked in all of the commandments (Lk. 1:6); Jesus told men to be perfect (Matt. 5:48), Jesus told men to stop sinning (Jn. 5:14; 8:11); the Apostle Paul told men to stop sinning (1 Cor. 15:34; Eph. 4:26; 1 Pet. 1:15); and Paul had a conscience void of offence, or which was unaware of any sin in his life (Acts 23:1; 24;16); we are commanded to be blameless (1 Cor. 1:8; Php. 2;15; 1 Thes. 5:23; 1 Tim. 3:2, 10; 5:7; Tit. 1:6-7; 2 Pet. 3:14); etc. If it were not possible to choose to stop sinning, or to choose to be perfect, it would not be commanded of us all throughout the Scriptures. The Bible classifies true Christians as those who “keep His commandments” (1 Jn. 2:3; 1 Jn. 3:22), while false converts are those who do not (1 Jn. 2:4). The commandments of Christ are not impossible for us to keep (1 Jn. 5:3).

               Charles Finney said, “…entire obedience to God’s law is possible on the ground of natural ability. To deny this is to deny that man is able to do as well as he can. The very language of the law is such as to level its claims to the capacity of the subject, however great or small that capacity may be. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength” (Deut 6:5). Here then it is plain, that all the law demands, is the exercise of whatever strength we have, in the service of God. Now, as entire sanctification is nothing more than the right use of whatever strength we have, it is, of course, forever settled, that a state of entire sanctification is attainable in this life, on the ground of natural ability.”[165]

               Leonard Ravenhill said, “I am not saying that it is impossible for us to sin. I am saying that it is possible for us not to sin.”[166]

               Duncan Campbell said, “You will never get to the place in your life where it is impossible for you to sin. But thanks be to God that you are in a position where it is possible for you not to.”[167]

               George Fox was an open air street preacher who founded the Quakers. He preached the possibility of living a holy and perfect life and said that the Calvinists in his day opposed him for it. George Fox said,“…the professors were in a rage, all pleading for sin and imperfection, and could not endure to hear talk of perfection, and of a holy and sinless life.”[168]

               These Calvinists would use the Bible to justify their unholy lives, just like we see them doing today. George Fox said, “I bade them give over babbling about the Scriptures, which were holy men’s words, whilst they pleaded for unholiness.”[169]

               Throughout Church history, many of that the possibility of not sinning. Certainly, the teaching of the Early Church Fathers explicitly taught that we are capable of obedience or disobedience. Men of God like John Wesley even wrote books called, “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection.” The MoravianChurch taught that true Christians live holy lives, as the Apostle Paul said “free from sin” (Rom. 6:18, 22). William and Catherine Booth and the Salvation Army taught the possibility of being free from sin through Jesus Christ. Samuel Brengle of the Salvation Army wrote many books on their doctrine of holiness.

               Will Tony Miano accuse the Early Church, John Wesley, the Methodist Church, the Moravian Church, William and Catherine Booth, Samuel Brengle, and the Salvation Army as heretical? Will they claim that Duncan Campbell, whom God used to hae a “sovereign and supernatural” revival in a Calvinist church, was a heretic? Whatever happened to Tony Miano’s desire to create unity within the body of believers and not to separate from other Christians? Why is he dividing himself from so many men of God and Christian groups?

               Besides, as someone recently said about this issue, “If Tony believes we all have to sin everyday, then why attack Mark? Why not just write off any disagreement as one of Mark’s necessary sins for the day? Why blame Mark for what he is predestined to do, according to Calvinism?”[170]

OPEN THEISM

               In an article about traveling street preachers, Tony Miano said that many “have moved or are moving away from biblical Christianity and are ascribing to heretical doctrines such as Pelagianism, Open Theism, and others. I believe when Christians make the move toward nomadism and begin the doctrinal slide from orthodoxy to heresy.” Again, we see how Tony Miano accuses Christians of being heretics. L. D. McCabe was an Arminian Methodist Professor, and he wrote two very important works on the open view of the future.[171]Open theism has found acceptance by many Arminians in the Arminian camp. That is because Open Theism is nothing more than the logical conclusion of free will. I personally know many Christian churches and Pastors across the country that hold to the essentials of the Christian faith, who believe from Scripture there is openness to the future.

               The open view of the future teaches that there are alternative choices which we can make, or different options to choose from, relating to the course of the future. The future does not consist entirely in fixed certainties but has open possibilities. The future is partially settled because of predeterminations, but it is not eternally or exhaustively fixed.

               The Scriptural support for the open view is extensive. For example, (Gen. 6:5-7; Ex. 3:18, 4:9, 13:17; 16:4; 18:19; 22;12; 32:10-14; Ex. 33:2; 16:4; 34:24; Num. 11:1-2; 14:12-20; 16:16:20-35; 23:19; Deut. 8:2; 9:13-14, 9:18-20, 9:25; 13:3; 30:19; 32:36; Jos. 24:15; Judges 2:18; 2:20-22; 3:4; 1 Chron. 21:11-12; 2 Chron. 12:5-8; 32:31; 1 Sam. 15:10-11, 15:29, 35; 2 Sam. 24:16-25; 1 Kin. 21:27-29; Ps. 90:13, 106:45, 110:4, 135:14; Isa. 5:1-5; 63:10; Jer. 2:30; 3:6-7; 3:19-20; 4:28, 15:6, 18:1-10, 18:10, 20:16, 21:8; 26:3, 26:13, 26:19, 42:10, Eze. 12:13; 22:29-31; 24:14, Hos. 11:8, 13:14; Joel 1:13-14; 2:12-13; Ps. 145:13; Prov. 10:27; Amos 7:3, 7:6; Jonah 3:9-10, 4:2; Zach. 8:14; Matt. 24:20, 22; 26:53; Mk. 13:18, 20; Acts 7:51; Php. 1:22-23.) This is just to name a few verses.

               There is obviously more scriptural support for Open Theism than for the Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination, so it is strange for anyone to reject the former but hold to the latter.

               Nevertheless, Tony Miano accuses Arminians like L. D. McCabe of being heretics, when he said himself that we should not divide over Arminianism and Calvinism and that we should not call each other heretics. This just goes to show more hypocrisy on his part and a clear double standard.

TONY MIANO IS DIVISIVE AND IS HURTING THE BODY OF CHRIST

               When Tony Miano was the director of The Ambassadors Academy, the training program for Way of the Master, he specifically outlined in the training application that if you believed in moral government theology, open theism, or Christian perfection, then you were not welcome to participate – you are excluded from fellowship.[172] He associated these beliefs with “Oneness Pentecostals” and “Jehovah witnesses.” By that divisive and exclusive standard, men of God like John Wesley, Charles Finney, William and Catherine Booth, Duncan Campbell, A. W. Tozer, Paris Reidhead, Winkie Pratney, and Leonard Ravenhill could not participate. These Christians believed in moral government doctrines like repentance, holiness, conditional security, free will, governmental and unlimited atonement, etc. This just goes to show just how divisive a Calvinist like Tony Miano is. I thought it was strange for this to be in an application for a Way of the Master training program, since Ray Comfort himself is personal friends with Winkie Pratney and even had Leonard Ravenhill endorse his book, “Hell’s Best Kept Secret.”

               It appears Tony Miano is guilty of exactly what he accuses Mark Cahill of. Tony complained that Mark, “Shows a lack of love for his Christian brethren by breaking fellowship with Calvinists and refuses to call them brothers or sisters in Christ.” Tony Miano is upset that Mark Cahill will not call Calvinists Christians, yet at the same time Tony says that Cahill might be a false convert! Tony wrote, “Is Cahill a false convert? We do not know.”[173] He then references 1 John 3:15 in reference to Cahill, accusing him of being a hateful murderer that does not have eternal life! The original title of Tony’s article was, “Why I Fear For Mark Cahill’s Soul.”

               Tony Miano said that Mark Cahill should not call Calvinists heretics, when Tony’s own charge of heresy against Christians for not believing certain doctrines in effect charges certain Calvinists with heresy. So Tony Miano himself, essentially, calls certain Calvinists heretics! Tony Miano said that Calvinists and Arminians agree on the essentials and should be able to fellowship and not call each other heretics, but then Tony quotes in agreement with Spurgeon who called Arminians heretics, and Tony says certain doctrines are essential and heretical to deny, which Arminians have not believed in. This just goes to show that Tony Miano has not fully thought out what he says and is confused.

               In conclusion, it is apparent that it is Tony Miano and not Mark Cahill who is creating controversy, being divisive, and treats Christians in an unbiblical fashion. It is Tony Miano, not Mark Cahill, who is taking his own personal doctrine and trying to turn non-essentials into essentials, and calling Christians heretics for non-essentials. Tony Miano is simply being treated by Mark Cahill the same way that Tony Miano has treated other Christians. Miano has labeled many Christians as “heretics” for believing doctrines that he disagrees with, and he has divided and separated from them. Mark Cahill has simply done the same to Tony Miano. Tony is simply receiving what he has been giving – reaping what he’s been sowing.

               Let’s all pray for Tony Miano.

               (And for the record, since Calvinism teaches that everything is eternally decreed by God and man cannot, therefore, act differently than he does, everything in this article was predestined before the foundations of the world and I had no free will in writing it. Therefore, do not get upset with me for what I have written. It was the Sovereign and irresistible will of God that it be so.)

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

 VIDEOS:

ARTICLES:

“Is God the Author of Sin?”

“Did He Corrupt The Church With Gnostic Doctrine?”

“The Secret of Success In The Ministry of Charles G. Finney by Gordon C. Olson”

“Are Babies Sinful or Innocent?”

“Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature?”

“Man’s Repentance and Christ’s Atonement”

“William Booth on the Doctrine of the Governmental Atonement”

‘Was Pelagius Really A Heretic? Was Augustine A Heretic? Is Calvinism Heresy?”

THEOLOGICAL BOOKS:

The Natural Ability of Man: A Study On Free Will & Human Nature by Jesse Morrell is an exhaustive theological volume that defends the Christian doctrine of man’s free will against the false Gnostic/Calvinist doctrine of man’s natural inability.

This volume explains the truth of man’s freedom of choice in light of Church history and other doctrines like total depravity, regeneration, atonement, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, predestination, repentance, faith, the believers security, original sin, etc. One Bible teacher called this book “the most comprehensive exposition on man’s natural ability in print.”

690 pages

$20.00

To Order: Click Here

The Truth Shall Make You Free by Gordon C. Olson is an absolute essential for any Christian library. It has been said that Gordon C. Olson was the greatest theologian of the 20th Century, and “The Truth Shall Make You Free” was his masterpiece. This is a monumental work of theological literature. To reprint this very important volume is one of the reasons that we even started reprinting books at all. We would like to see this book in the hands of every believer. It is our opinion that “The Truth Shall Make You Free” is one of the greatest theological works of Christian history.

197 pages  (8.5″ x 11″)

$15.00

To Order: Click Here

This is the complete 1851 edition of Lectures on Systematic Theology by Charles G. Finney. These Lectures are arguably the greatest systematic theology in Chrisitan history. This is a “Note Takers Edition” as the bottom of each page has a large area for the reader to write their own personal notes as they study this wonderful piece of Christian theology.

 731 pages  (8.5″ x 11″)

$26.00

To Order: Click Here

 

Memoirs of Revivals of Religion contains the personal account of revivals of Charles G. Finney. This volume describes the amazing details of the extraordinary revivals which God used his servant Finney in. A Christian will find it hard to be able to read this book without getting on his knees to pray for revival!

408 pages

$15.00

To Order: Click Here

 Lectures on Revivals of Religion by Charles G. Finney is a classic volume on revivals. Finney was America’s greatest revivalist. Over half a million souls were soundly saved under his ministry. After this volume was first published, revivals started breaking out all over the place. This book is a must read for any believer who wants to win souls to Christ!

471 pages

$16.00

To Order: Click Here

The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation by James B. Walker is a discussion on the fundamental facts about God’s dealing with the human race throughout history, to convince the rational reader that the religion of the Bible is from God and is uniquely adapted to produce the greatest good for mankind. Some readers have called this book the best apologetic of the Christian faith that they have read.

184 Pages

$12.00

To Order: Click Here

 Charles Grandison Finney by G. Frederick Wright is one of the best biographys on this hero of the Christian faith. This book details the life, ministry, and theology of the greatest revivalists America has ever seen. While Finney’s modern critics always try to downplay his success as an evangelist, this book was written by someone who was actually there in the 19th Century, who knew and worked with Finney for 30 years.

205 pages

$12.00

To Order: Click Here

Objections to Calvinism As It Is by Randolph S. Foster is a classic rebuttal to the doctrines of “Reformed Theology” from the 1800′s.  The false theology of Calvinism is refuted by the authors scriptural and rational arguments, plainly exposing the so-called “Doctrines of Grace” for what they really are. Some Christians have called this work the best book on Calvinism out there. The authors use of logic, scripture, and sarcasm makes this book a blessing to read!

274 pages

$13.00

To Order: Click Here

A Defense of New England Theology by Albert Barnes is a very rare book, originally published in 1829. It contains Barnes sermon, “The Way of Salvation” for which he was accused of heresy by Rev. Dr. George Junkin. The doctrines in question were human ability, imputation, and atonement. Barne’s response and defense to the charge of heresy is also contained in this volume, for which Barnes was acquitted by the Synod of Philadelphia. “New England Theology” was a theological movement with notable men like Moses Stuart, Albert Barnes, Charles Finney, Asa Mahan, and others. The modern movement of “Moral Government Theology” has its roots in what was “New England Theology.”

194 pages

$12.00

To Order: Click Here

The Scriptural Doctrine of Atonement by Caleb Burge has been said to be the best book on the Governmental Atonement theory. Burge expounds upon very profound concepts and presents them in a very intelligent and understandable way. This book was originally published in 1822. It contains pure theological gold on one of the most important doctrines of Christianity. It will be an absolute treasure in your library.

135 pages

$10.00

To Order: Click Here

An Historical Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism by G. F. Wiggers is a classic and impartial work on the Augustine/Pelagius debate from the 1800′s. By appealing to the original sources that are available, Dr. Wiggers compares and contrasts these two opposing theologies, defining and explaining the various doctrines within each system of thought.

369 pages

$15.00

To Order: Click Here

Divine Nescience & Foreknowledge contains two classic works from the 1800′s in one volume. They are “Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies A Necessity” and “The Foreknowledge of God, and Cognate Themes in Theology and Philosophy” by L. D. McCabe. Because these books were out of print, these books have been very hard to find and very expensive to purchase, until now. These two profound books were written in the 1800′s and brilliantly expound upon the open view of God. They are two of the most important theological writings of the 19th Century and arguably two of the best writings on the topic of open theism. This book is a must read for any Christian who wants to understand the scriptural and logical arguments for the open view of the future.

490 pages

$20.00

To Order: Click Here

 The Atonement by Albert Barnes is a classic book on the governmental theory of the atonement from a very prominent pastor and world renown Bible commentator from the 1800’s. Barnes’ work on The Atonement was Leonard Ravenhill’s number one recommended book out of forty listed. It is very insightful, thought provoking, and spiritually rich.

Albert Barnes (1789-1870) was a pastor, author, and Bible commentator. He pastored the large and influential First Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. He is best known for his extensive notes on the Bible. Millions of copies of his notes have been printed and distributed worldwide and have blessed many. His work on the atonement was one of his greatest contributions to Christian Theology.

309 Pages

$14.00

To Order: Click Here

Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan is possibly Mahan’s best book. It is a satisfactory rebuttal to the doctrine of the Necessitarians, specifically the Edwardian kind, who taught that the will operated under the law of necessity rather than liberty. Revivalist and theologian Charles Finney said that this classic was “a highly important work” that “every family should possess and make themselves familiar with.”

 191 Pages

$12.00

To Order: Click Here

The Atonement in Christ by John Miley is one of the most exhaustive and important writings on the various atonement theories that have existed throughout Christian history. This classic writing advances the Governmental Theory of the atonement as true and scriptural and critiques the opposing perspectives like that of the Penal Substitution Theory of atonement.

 John Miley (1813-1895) was an American Christian theologian in the Methodist tradition who was  one of the major Methodist theological voices of the 19th century.

 Miley had graduated from Augusta College and, as a Methodist pastor, had held nineteen different pastoral appointments. He served as chair of systematic theology at Drew University in Madison, NJ beginning in 1873, after his brother-in-law, Randolph Sinks Foster, left the seat to become a Bishop.

290 Pages

$14.00

To Order: Click Here

The Extent of the Atonement: In Its Relation to God and the Universe by Rev. Thomas W. Jenkyn is a classic work expounding upon the Governmental View of the atonement. It is a thorough explanation of the atonement in reference to its nature, the character of God, the purposes of God, the works of God, the moral government of God, the providence of God, divine truth, the rebellion of man, the salvation of mankind, the work of the Holy Spirit, the Christian church, etc. This book presents the truth of the Scriptures in clarity and is an absolute joy to read.

 363 Pages

  $15.00

To Order: Click Here

The Governmental View of the Atonement is a compilation book with writings from some of the best theologians on this topic. The authors include Charles Finney, Henry Cowles, John Morgan, Moses Stuart, and Jonathon Edwards Jr. These authors present the truth of the atonement of Christ in a very clear Scriptural and reasonable light. Their writings show the necessity, nature, and extent of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. The benevolence and brilliance of God in providing a way to sustain His moral government while pardoning transgressors will be clearly seen as you read this wonderful piece of literature.

  315 Pages

$14.00

To Order: Click Here

The Atonement as it Relates to God and Man by Nathan Beman is a wonderful exposition on the Governmental View of the atonement of Christ. With precision and excellence the author explains why it was necessary for God’s moral government that the atonement of Christ be made if God is going to pardon sinners, the nature of Christ’s atoning death, and the extent of who this loving sacrifice has been made for. The reader of this book will be left with a crystal clear understanding of the doctrine of atonement.

159 Pages

$12.00

 To Order: Click Here

Reconciliation and the Atonement according to P. P. Waldenstrom is actually two writings compiled into one. The first writing is, “Be Ye Reconciled to God: A Look at the Atonement” by P. P. Waldenstrom and the second is, “The Christian Doctrine of the Atonement According to P. P. Waldenstrom” by Axel Andersson. This book answers the question, “Was the atonement designed to change God or to change man? Is God reconciled to man or is man reconciled to God?” This is a must read for every Christian believer! Paul Petter Waldenström (1838–1917) was a Swedish theologian who became the most prominent leader of the free church movement in late 19th century in Sweden.

123 Pages

$11.00

To Order: Click Here

---

 END NOTES

[1] A Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism by Dr. Wiggers, p. 332

[2] An Historical Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism From The Original Sources” by Dr Wiggers, 1840 Edition, pages 128-129

[3] An Historical Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism From The Original Sources” by Dr Wiggers, 1840 Edition, pages 128-129

[4] Faith and Freedom, Published by Vintage Books, p. 91

[5] Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther, translated by J. I. Packer & Johnston, Published by Revell, 1957 Edition, p. 149

[6] Secret Providence, p. 267

[7] Sovereignty of Grace, p. 156

[8] The Reformed Faith, p. 98

[9] Systematic Theology, p. 595

[10] Open Air Outreach message board, Doctrine and Theology section

[11] Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, pp.207-208

[12] Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121

[13] Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, p.208

[14] The Calvinist Gadfly

[15] Why I am a Calvinist

[16] The Doctrines That Divide, p.195

[17] Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.106

[18] The MacArthur Study Bible, p.1959

[19] Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521, From the Wartburg (Segment) Translated by Erika Bullmann Flores from: _Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften_ Dr, Johannes Georg Walch, Ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), Vol. 15,cols. 2585-2590

[20] Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. 17, sec. 1

[21] The Bondage of the Will, p. 268

[22] The Sovereignty of God, p. 88

[23] The Westminster Catachism

[24] The Bondage of the Will, Sovereign Grace Publishers, p. 87

[25] Top. Vol. V, p. 210

[26] Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p. 169

[27] Comment on Facebook, on the wall of Kerrigan Skelly.

[28] The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon, Curts & Jennings, Cincinnati, Chicago, St. Louis, 1898, Vol. I, p.172,

[29] Pelagianism by Matt Slick, posted on CARM.org

[30] Letter to Rome

[31] On The Grace Of Christ, And On Original Sin by Augustine.

[32] Pelagius: Life and Letters by B. R. Rees, 1988 Edition, p. 33.

[33] (De Gr. Chr. 4, 7.)

[34] (De Gr. Chr. 31, 35, 37, 41)

[35] Retractations by Augustine

[36] The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., 1840 Edition, p. 310

[37] The Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. John Wesley, Volume 3, 1828 Edition, p. 259

[38] The Works of the Late Reverend John Wesley, A.M., Volume 2, 1835 Edition, pg. 110

[39] An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism From The Original Sources by G. F. Wiggers, p. 392

[40] An Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism by John Fletcher, Volume Two, p. 209, Published by Carlton & Porter

[41] Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume One, Published by Calvin Translation Society, 1845 Edition, p. 308

[42] An Equal Check to Pharsaism and Antinomianism by John Fletcher, Volume Two, p. 202, Published by Carlton & Porter

[43] A Treatise on Predestination, Election, and Grace, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical by Walter Arthur Copinger, Published by James Nisbet, 1889 Edition, p. 320

[44] Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 60, Published by Truth in Heart

[45] A Treatise on Predestination, Election, and Grace, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical, Published by James Nisbet, 1889 Edition, p. 320

[46] Views in Theology, Published by Truman and Smith, 1836 Edition, p. 56

[47] Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 59, Published by Truth in Heart

[48] The Christian Examiner, Volume One, Published by James Miller, 1824 Edition, p. 70

[49] A Church Dictionary, Published by John Murray, 1852 Edition, p. 279

[50] Views in Theology, Published by Truman and Smith, 1836 Edition, p. 56

[51] Mark Cahill by Tony Miano, edited by Matt Slick, posted on CARM.org

[52] Mark Cahill by Tony Miano, edited by Matt Slick, posted on CARM.org

[53] Mark Cahill by Tony Miano, edited by Matt Slick, posted on CARM.org

[54] The Watchmen by Mark Cahill

[55] Recognitions of Clement of Rome. 111. 23, V. 8, IX. 30

[56] First Apology Chap. 43

[57] Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, pg 62, Published by Truth in Heart

[58] A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, Published by Hendrickson Publishers, p. 287

[59] Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 61, Published by Truth in Heart

[60] Five Checks to Antinomianism, p. 23

[61] Commentary on Deut. 11:26

[62] A Defense of New England Theology, p. 10-11, originally published in 1829, republished by Biblical Truth Resources, a ministry of Open Air Outreach.

[63] A Defense of New England Theology, p. 106-107, originally published in 1829, republished by Biblical Truth Resources, a ministry of Open Air Outreach.

[64] The Works of Beecher, Vol. III, p. 263, published by John P. Jewett & Company, 1853

[65] Beecher’s Works, Vol. III

[66] Trial of the Rev. Lyman Beecher, 1835 Edition, p. 33

[67] Mark Cahill by Tony Miano, edited by Matt Slick, posted on CARM.org

[68] Mark Cahill by Tony Miano, edited by Matt Slick, posted on CARM.org

[69] Mark Cahill by Tony Miano, edited by Matt Slick, posted on CARM.org

[70] Mark Cahill by Tony Miano, edited by Matt Slick, posted on CARM.org

[71] Mark Cahill by Tony Miano, edited by Matt Slick, posted on CARM.org

[72] Mark Cahill by Tony Miano, edited by Matt Slick, posted on CARM.org

[73] Thayer’s Hebrew-English Lexicon

[74] A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 286, Published by Hendrickson Publishers

[75] A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 287, Published by Hendrickson Publishers

[76] A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 289, Published by Hendrickson Publishers

[77] The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians chap 5, Long Version

[78] A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 289, Published by Hendrickson Publishers

[79] A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 286, Published by Hendrickson Publishers

[80] A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 287, Published by Hendrickson Publishers

[81] The Quarterly Christian Spectator, Volume Seven, Published by S. Cooke, 1825 Edition, p. 270

[82] Views in Theology, Published by Truman and Smith, 1836 Edition, p. 55

[83] The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume Six, Published by BRC CD, p. 696

[84] The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume Six, Published by BRCCD, p 698)

[85] The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume Six, Published by BRCCD, p. 746

[86] The Christian Examiner, Volume One, Published by James Miller, 1824 Edition, p. 66

[87] The Case for Christianity, p. 4, 7; published by Macmillan Company, 1950.

[88] The Analogy of Religion to the Constitution and Course of Nature: Also, Fifteen Sermons by Joseph Butler, Bishop of Durham, With the life of the Author, a Copious Analysis, Notes, and Indexes, by Joseph Angus, pg. 339

[89] The Analogy of Religion to the Constitution and Course of Nature: Also, Fifteen Sermons by Joseph Butler, Bishop of Durham, With the life of the Author, a Copious Analysis, Notes, and Indexes, by Joseph Angus,  pg. 341

[90] The Analogy of Religion to the Constitution and Course of Nature: Also, Fifteen Sermons by Joseph Butler, Bishop of Durham, With the life of the Author, a Copious Analysis, Notes, and Indexes, by Joseph Angus,  pg. 342-343

[91] The Analogy of Religion to the Constitution and Course of Nature: Also, Fifteen Sermons by Joseph Butler, Bishop of Durham, With the life of the Author, a Copious Analysis, Notes, and Indexes, by Joseph Angus,  pg. 355, 356

[92] The Analogy of Religion to the Constitution and Course of Nature: Also, Fifteen Sermons by Joseph Butler, Bishop of Durham, With the life of the Author, a Copious Analysis, Notes, and Indexes, by Joseph Angus, pg. 365

[93] The Analogy of Religion to the Constitution and Course of Nature: Also, Fifteen Sermons by Joseph Butler, Bishop of Durham, With the life of the Author, a Copious Analysis, Notes, and Indexes, by Joseph Angus, p. 372

[94] The Analogy of Religion to the Constitution and Course of Nature: Also, Fifteen Sermons by Joseph Butler, Bishop of Durham, With the life of the Author, a Copious Analysis, Notes, and Indexes, by Joseph Angus, pg. 373, 374

[95] The Analogy of Religion to the Constitution and Course of Nature: Also, Fifteen Sermons by Joseph Butler, Bishop of Durham, With the life of the Author, a Copious Analysis, Notes, and Indexes, by Joseph Angus, pg 377, 378, 381

[96] Revival Study Bible, Published by Armour Publishing Pte Ltd, p. 1562

[97] Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity, Chapter: Harmonizing of the Calvinian and ArminianSchools of Theology

[98] Finding the Reality of God, pg 64-65

[99] Paths To Power, Christian Publications, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania

[100] Checks to Antinomianism by John Fletcher, Volume One, p. 130, 147, Published by Carlton & Porter

[101] Doctrine of the Will, Published by Truth in Heart, p. 115

[102] Sermon on Original Sin

[103] The Way of Salvation: A Sermon, Delivered at Morristown, New Jersey, Together with Mr. Barnes Defense of the Sermon , Read Before the Synod of Philadelphia, and his Defense before the second Presbytery of Philadelphia, 1836 Edition, p. 211

[104] The Way of Salvation: A Sermon, Delivered at Morristown, New Jersey, Together with Mr. Barnes Defense of the Sermon , Read Before the Synod of Philadelphia, and his Defense before the second Presbytery of Philadelphia, 1836 Edition, p. 220

[105] The Synod of Philadelphia (1829) and the Synod of Cincinatti (1835).

[106] (The Way of Salvation: A Sermon, Delivered at Morristown, New Jersey, Together with Mr. Barnes Defense of the Sermon , Read Before the Synod of Philadelphia, and his Defense before the second Presbytery of Philadelphia, 1836 Edition, p. 254-255)

[107] The Works of the Rev. John Wesley” page 350, published by J & J Harper in 1826

[108] The Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. John Wesley, Volume Two, page 450, published by J & J Harper in 1828

[109] The Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. John Wesley,” Volume Two, page 452, published by J & J Harper in 1828

[110] A Right Conception of Sin by Richard Taylor, published in 1939.

[111] The Works of the Rev John Wesley”, published in 1841, page 352.

[112] Positive Theology, Published by R. P. Thompson, 1854, p. 211-212

[113] Lectures on Systematic Theology, Published by BRC CD, p. 473

[114] The Atonement of Jesus Christ, 1922.

[115] A Defense of New England Theology, published by Biblical Truth Resources, p. 40

[116] Coke upon Littleton, Vol. III, p. 368

[117] The Westminster Catachism

[118] Institutes, b. 11. ch. 1. 38.

[119] Essay’s, Lectures, Etc, Upon Select Topics in Revealed Theology, Published by Clark, Austin & Smith, 1859 Edition, p. 172

[120] Essay’s, Lectures, Etc, Upon Select Topics in Revealed Theology, Published by Clark, Austin & Smith, 1859 Edition, p. 172

[121] Institutes, b. 11. ch. 1. 38.

[122] The Way of Salvation: A Sermon, Delivered at Morristown, New Jersey, Together with Mr. Barnes Defense of the Sermon , Read Before the Synod of Philadelphia, and his Defense before the second Presbytery of Philadelphia, 1836 Edition

[123] Original Sin, part iv. ch. iii.

[124] Original Sin, part iv. ch. iii.

[125] A Defense of New England Theology, published by Biblical Truth Resources, p. 43

[126] The Truth Shall Make You Free, published by Biblical Truth Resources, p. 83

[127] Enns, Paul P. The Moody Handbook of Theology, p. 312.”

[128] Ransom Theory of Atonement, CARM.org

[129] The Truth Shall Make You Free by Gordon C. Olson, published by Biblical Truth Resources, p. 84

[130] The Atonement in Christ, published by Biblical Truth Resources, p. 169-170.

[131] Theory and Scripture Interpretation, p. 6

[132] Positive Theology, p. 114, 1854 Edition

[133] The Doctrines of the Salvation Army, 1892 Edition, Section 6.

[134] The Doctrines of the Salvation Army, 1892 Edition, Section 6.

[135] The Atonement of Jesus Christ, The Staff Review of 1922.

[136] The Atonement of Jesus Christ, The Staff Review of 1922.

[137] Popular Christianity

[138] Popular Christianity

[139] Paths To Power, Christian Publications, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania

[140] Paths To Power, Christian Publications, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania

[141] Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21

[142] Commentary on Galatians 3:13

[143] Commentary on Galatians 3:13

[144] The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 231

[145] The Oberlin Evangelist; July 30, 1856; On the Atonement, p. 2

[146] Lectures on Systematic Theology, 1851, Lecture on Justification

[147] The Governmental View of the Atonement, published by Biblical Truth Resources, p. 247.

[148] The Governmental View of the Atonement, published by Biblical Truth Resources, p. 251

[149] The Necessity of the Atonement, p. 7

[150] Inferences and Reflections on Atonement, p. 8

[151] Grace Consistent with Atonement, p. 7

[152] The Necessity of the Atonement, p. 1

[153] Grace Consistent with Atonement, p. 2

[154] Grace Consistent with Atonement, p. 3-4, 6

[155] The Scriptural Doctrine of Atonement, originally published in 1822, republished by Biblical Truth Resources, p. 64

[156] The error of the Moral Government view of the atonement, CARM.org

[157] Open Air Profile of Tony Miano, Crown Rights

[158] Mark Cahill by Tony Miano, edited by Matt Slick, posted on CARM.org

[159] The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., 1840 Edition, p. 310

[160] The Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. John Wesley, Volume 3, 1828 Edition, p. 259

[161] The Works of the Late Reverend John Wesley, A.M., Volume 2, 1835 Edition, pg. 110

[162] Open Air Profile of Tony Miano, Crown Rights

[163] Open Air Profile of Tony Miano, Crown Rights

[164] Lane Chaplin Profile, Rightly Divided

[165] Lectures on Systematic Theology, 1851 Edition, p. 502

[166] Sermon by Leonard Ravenhill, Sermon Index

[167] Sermon by Duncan Campbell, Sermon Index

[168] A Journal or Historical Account of the Life, Travels, Sufferings, Christian Experiences, and Labor of Love in the Work of the Ministry of that Ancient, Eminent, and Faithful Servant of Jesus Christ, George Fox, Philadelphia, 1839, p. 64

[169] George Fox an Autobiography, Published by Ferris and Leach, 1919 Edition,  p. 123

[170] Comment on Facebook on the wall of Kerrigan Skelly.

[171] Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies A Necessity & The Foreknowledge of God, and Cognate Themes in Theology and Philosophy

[172] The Application for The Ambassadors Academy, the training ministry of Way of the Master.

[173] Mark Cahill by Tony Miano, edited by Matt Slick, CARM.org