Wanted: More Arminians

Hi Aaron,

Unless this is a church member of your own church, why would you bother getting involved in this type of exchange? It's a no win situation, as far as I can see. And I wouldn't get into this with a church member by e-mail... way too inflammatory.

Now, a few comments on what I get from your article...

The way you say this, along with some other points in your article is rather frustrating to any kind of charitable discussion of theology. First, a lot of these terms are inflammatory by themselves. Using the term "Pelagian" is all too easy for Calvinists, they seem to trot it out at the first opportunity, and whether it is qualified by "semi-", "qausi-", "demi-", "hemi-" or any other such prefix it really frustrates non-Calvinists because it is just pejorative and hardly every is an accurate description of what they believe. It is most often used to silence critics lest they should be in any way connected to Pelagius and his heretical beliefs. That's no way to conduct an argument.

The term "Arminian" itself is likewise very frustrating. The way it is used seems to be generally as a pejorative of any system that isn't at least 4-point Calvinism. The fact is that there are several different views between full Arminianism and full Calvinism. Personally, I reject both Calvinism and Arminianism as inadequate to fully express the meaning of Scripture. So it is incredibly frustrating when that term is trotted out. I noticed it in a recent review somewhere... Themelios? I think that's where it was. There was a review of a book I recently read, Whosoever Will, edited by David Allen and Steven Lemke. The reviewer basically dismissed the book as "Arminian" ... which is not the case at all.

In these discussions, it would be better to just leave off the labels and talk about what we think the actual texts say. On the non-Calvinist side, I have seen too much throwing around of the "Hyper-" prefix, a term designed to frustrate Calvinists and shut them up.

One last quibble, in your footnote, you said:

I don't think that is quite right. I think Arminianism teaches that all men are given prevenient grace such that when they hear the gospel they are able to believe.

Here's part of the Wikipedia entry:

There are more definitions there, including one from the Church of the Nazarene that seems to be a pretty representative statement of it.

Well, have at it! I don't plan to enter into this discussion beyond this post, though you never know...

And I think the internet is about to explode into a discussion of 'events, my boy, events' starting tomorrow, so probably this post will get lost in the shuffle!

Aaron, Some time ago, I wrestled with these two texts, in both of which the translation speaks of God's not being "willing" for people to perish. On further study, the II Peter passage uses "boulamai" and the I Timothy one uses "thelo." Without pushing the envelope too far, "boulomai" can mean God's determined plan, while "thelo" can speak of a desire, a wish, but not a determined blueprint. In II Peter, the author says God is longsuffering "to us," which would mean His children by faith in Christ. God works in us to draw us to Himself, even as John 6 indicates. In I Timothy, God says He desires all men to be saved. That would bring Him great joy, even as He knows and told us in Romans 3 that no man, left to his own devices, would come to Christ. This would tie in with Ezekiel 33:11, where God says He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and with Acts 13:46, where Paul says that those who rejected the gospel judged themselves unworthy of eternal life.
As I meditated upon these two passages over the years, this is how the Lord led my understanding of them.

Aaron,

I for one am thankful that you would endeavor to answer these kinds of questions and to give us the benefit of your thinking. I believe this kind of discussion can be most helpful to those who are wrestling with difficult Biblical statements.

Don, I would appeal to you to not get so frustrated with the use of terms and labels. These all have well defined meanings, historically, and can be extremely helpful in keeping these discussions from long, detailed explanations. Re-inventing the wheel, so to speak. The problem is not with the labels. The problem is that some do not understand correctly what the labels mean. When that becomes apparent, the discussion needs to slow down and take more time to explain. Otherwise, it can move forward more efficiently. Perhaps the use of these terms will encourage some to learn what they mean, and in the process, to further their understanding of the subject at hand.

It is my observation that a well understood, full blown Arminianism comes closer to Calvinism in many respects than the broadly evangelical gospel so prevalent today. An old-fashioned Wesleyan, for example, recognizes the need for the Holy Spirit's personal and specific operation upon an individual to enable them to believe the gospel. Many modern day evangelicals/fundamentalists do not, opting instead to believe that saving faith is inherent in every man, or that prevenient grace enables everyone to believe the gospel when they hear it, without an immediate enabling work of the Holy Spirit, a work that may not occur to another sinner hearing the same message at the same time.

Thanks to all for a good discussion.

For my hour long commutes in the morning, I'm listening through the 100 Sunday School classes that Wayne Grudem did of his Systematic Theology at his church. Just yesterday, I listened to his lecture on Election. I think he has a similar spirit to Aaron here. He appreciates the legitimate arguments of true Arminians, while holding a Calvinist view. This is worth a listen, as is the series. He has a good discussion here of the different kinds of "wanting" that God may have. He has a good illustration of how we all "want" various things, and we all do what we "want" in the end. Do we "want" to accept Christ? Yes. But the question of whether we really want it or not is somewhat different from what God sovereignly willed and "wanted" from time past.

Election and Reprobation

http://scottsdalebible.com/assets/audio/christian-essentials/20080120WGr...

The whole series is linked here

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/MP3-Audio--Multimedia/A...

And on iTunes via podcast.

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wayne-grudems-systematic-theology/id3...

Fair enough. However, the labels I object to most are not used as descriptors in debate, they are used to dismiss the argument or the one arguing and to shut down the argument altogether. "That's just semi-Pelagianism." "You're just an Arminian." I suppose such statements are fine if they are true, but most often they are not, and when used, they are used by Calvinists who don't understand what they mean and just want to dismiss the person they disagree with.

I agree. That's one of the reasons I reject full blown Arminianism! (I reject the 'broadly evangelical gospel' too, just in case anyone is wondering.)

Well said and I couldn't agree more. It would seem it you give God a little to much credit for saving us...Then your just a dirty old Calvinist.

Hey Aaron,

Like it's been said by a few, thank you for your boldness in speaking forth, and I'd just encourage you to be gentle with those who disagree with you on some of these things, even when they start the conversation with an attack. And maybe gentle isn't the best word...but responding out of love.

I used to be an arminian. Or...something like that. I knew I wasn't one of those crazy, arrogant and self-important Calvinists who thought that God would only save them and a few others. What a ridiculous stance to take - how would you ever even bring that into the world? I remember (somewhat to my shame) sitting in my 11th or 12th grade Bible class, arguing with my teacher, and not letting John 3:16 go. "THE WORLD! How can you MISS that?!?!"

About 2 or 3 years ago, I really began to see the positions put forward by John Calvin in Scripture. I didn't want to see them. I basically ended a relationship with a girl over Calvinism. That one might prove that God is sovereign AND good, but that's a separate issue

I really didn't want to hear it. The stance that God would predestine some but not all did, and sometimes still does, bother me. It doesn't square with my feelings of "fairness." And perhaps there is where the problem starts. I understood that none of us deserved heaven, but if one person is saved, shouldn't all people have a fully equal chance of being saved?

What I've found, in my searching and studying, is that the answer is yes, and no (like several people have said.) We all get the same opportunity in that none would chose it, but some are chosen by God while others are not. To take it a step further becomes more uncomfortable, but logically consistent, I think, is to say therefore that God choses, as Romans 9 would say, some vessels to be prepared for destruction. That sounds like a mean, vindictive God who isn't love or doesn't love, but I think our view is too man-centered (I think there is a theological term for this, but all I can think of is Helio-centric, which isn't what I want.)

Following the logic of Romans 9, God reveled to me that God's ultimate goal is not to give every person a fair chance, but it is to Glorify the name of God. That God has grace on some does not make him unjust when he refuses that grace on others. Again, even now this concept isn't comfortable...but I see scripture supporting it. Which somehow gives me more confidence that it is not my idea, but the Word of the Lord.

As one last thought, Aaron, I think you are on the right track with your view on 2 Peter - that God has what I think Lewis called a narrow and wide scope or view, and that he is not bound by one while acting in accord with the other. Or said another way, he doesn't have to do what makes him happy right now if it does not line up with his overall purpose, namely glorifying his name.

Alright, sorry - I told myself this would be short

So Aaron...thank you!

Ohh - one other thought - you're spot on about calling all people (even those who call themselves Calvinists because that's the church they attend) to develop a consistent, Biblical, and Christ-centered Soteriology. I don't think that we can think to deeply or praise God to much for the way God redeems man, and, more importantly, us. My prayer is that we can build each other up and push each other towards truth, rather then dig deeper into our camps because "those other guys are jerks".

It is all a push for coherency. The coherency tries to relieve the tension. But until Jesus comes, the tension is going to remain. The debates will continue among godly brethren.

Charles, I haven't read much of Geisler. I read a lot of Calvinistic stuff. One of Andy N.'s recent blog posts has got me thinking about Owen's defense of particular atonement. But I am still not swayed.

I often find myself agreeing with Bruce Ware.

I think it's amusing that Calvinists use the term "Sovereign Grace", as if implying only they believe God is sovereign, yet they object to non-Cavlinists using the term "Biblicist", claiming it implies only non-Calvinists believe the Bible.

In the past when I got involved in discussions of alternatives to Calvinism here, the Calvinists (not the best representatives) involved would not acknowledge such a thing as Classical Arminianism, insisting all arminianism is pelagian, or semi.

I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian (of any kind), but am probably closer to a Classical Arminian than a Calvinist.

Nor is my soteriology random.

This is interesting . . .

(1) John Piper exploring the two wills of God -

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/resources/are-there-two-will...

(2) Bruce Ware exploring the extent of the Lord's atonement -

http://www.withoutvoid.com/WareExtentof%20Atonement.pdf

(3) Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views

http://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Doctrine-God-Four-Views/dp/B004LQ0INS

Again, I am inclined to agree with Ware rather than with a classical Calvinist position.

Guys - at the risk of sounding soft and mushy...easy. My feelings aren't hurt, and I understand the passion that you guys have for rightly handling the Word of God, especially in something as essential as to how God deal with the Salvation of his people, whom we all would agree and dependent on grace alone. And I'm newer to this board - i've followed and occasionally posted for about the last 18 months, but I know a lot of you have been involved a lot longer then that. So it's easy to get familiar with each other and lose some of the social graces, which is good to a point.

BUT, I encourage you guys to, while fiercely defending your position (or, more specifically, the scriptural position), do so with grace and as Iron sharpening Iron instead of chunks of lead slamming against each other. Realistically, I think it might be tough for a non-believer to get through this entire thread and get to the last few posts to see some things possibly deteriorating. So I won't in any way rule out the possibility of that happening or already have happened. And if that's you - congrats! But I think we'd be wise to develop a form no matter where we're writing, or who we're dealing with, where we build each other up and glorify God instead of protecting our pride in our position.

I know that sounds very..."I have candles on the stage in my meet room on Saturday nights"ish of me. And I'm sorry for that. I was just surprised to see a pretty civil debate start to take a nose dive, and think we'd all be wise to keep things in check in a conversation where it is super easy to get super emotional super quick.

Again, if you want to - just discount me. But I ask that you keep it in the back of your mind, not because I said it, but because...it's scriptural.

to use the terms monergism and synergism instead of Calvinism and Arminianism because they don't have the baggage attached to them, and also because they express the differences more clearly.

Kevin Bauder made the point in a post some time ago that Arminians were monergistic (God has to bestow the grace). Up to that point they agree with the Calvinists. They part company when they insist that grace is bestowed on all men without exception, and in my view fall into practical synergism.

It's these anti-Calvinists who are the true synergists!

Thread I started on Oct 30, 2010 - Monergism vs. Synergism – Part 1

Regardless how you slice it, whether faith is a gift or not (I think not), Rm 4.5 clearly teaches that faith is not a work.

So it is just wrong to say that faith is a work. Which really moots the question whether it is a gift or not. It just doesn't matter.

I think it does matter!

Either it is a gift of God (monergism) or it is something that man contributes (synergism) to his salvation.

Since Romans 4:5 declares that it is not a work, that indicates (to me at least) that it is not something man contributes.

It also matters because if the faith is ours, then we cannot be saved without our contribution. God can do everything but the ultimate salvation choice is ours. If the faith is gifted to us, then belief is a natural response to the gift of salvation.

Piper explains it in this video - 6:15 on 1 John 5:1

Aaron,

Very good article. As you are quite aware, true Arminians still held to a proper view of the nature and object of saving faith as did true Calvinists. This is why George Whitfield, a Calvinist Methodist, and John Wesley, an Arminian Methodist, had mutual respect for one another. Whitfield requested that Wesley preach his funeral. Unfortunately, today we have many who simply promote a brush-pile theology that is neither coherent nor systematic in any legitimate sense of the term. Faith has been dumbed-down to mental-assent alone with no sense of commitment or submission whatsoever. Repentance has either been stripped of its necessary connection with faith or equally dumbed-down based on etymological appeal rather than contextual usage--a fundamental hermeneutical flaw. The result of this Finney--Asa Mahon hybrid is a theological excuse for antinomianism which denies definitive sanctification and promotes a radical two-tier approach to progressive sanctification which in the final analysis becomes completely optional. Unfortunately, this error is widespread in both evangelical and fundamental circles.

Exactly!

One's soteriological view determines how one carries out the Great Commission. When the anti-Calvinist (Aaron's quasi-Pelagian mush-ers) claim that Calvinists are anti-evangelism, they really mean that they are anti-mush-y evangelism!

My mind is somewhat stuck on this idea of God's seemingly contradictory wills. I appreciate Todd Wood providing a link to John Piper's article. Let me quote from Piper.

Let me first say that this was an excellent piece of work, and it gave me a lot to think about. But I am constantly frustrated with the Calvinistic approach which I feel does not give give proper credit to the other side. Notice that in Piper's piece he lists Scripture references with his view, but none with the opposing view, as if that view has no Scriptural support. Also, he writes as if the opposing view does not have the glory of God in mind. Let me attempt to rephrase his view of Arminianism (Warning: I am not as eloquent as he is)

He states: "... we believe (with the Arminians) that God's will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to human self-determination"

My belief: we believe that God's will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to allowing Himself to be glorified through mankind's free will (John 1:12) to choose him (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

I don't have to be a Calvinist to believe that the glory of God is supreme.

It doesn't, but neither does the Bible come out and say exactly what Piper said. That is why we have a disagreement.

I am pretty much on board with what you said about free will, so let me try to be more specific.

My belief: we believe that God's will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to allowing Himself to be glorified through mankind's free will (John 1:12) to respond to His working in our lives (Heb. 3:7-13)

Dan, I use the term Sovereign Grace as meaning God's grace is bestowed by his sovereignty ALONE (thus unconditional election). It is true that Arminians believe God is sovereign, and it is true that they believe he is gracious. But "sovereign grace" is more about what is NOT there, namely, man's free response as a determining factor of who "gets" the grace. I do not like to call myself a Calvinist; for one thing, I reject limited atonement; for another, I don't sprinkle babies and am (progressive) dispensational and premillennial. My view of the church is not really calvinistic. Although I do not think it is wrong for one to call himself a Calvinist, in an argument it is better not to identify with any man (your opponents will use the "I am not following any man, only the Bible"), and I would rather preclude the whole self-righteous diversion. I could say I believe in "election," but so would an Arminian (he would define the idea differently). I guess I could say I am an "unconditional electionist," but that sounds like I'm a precinct captain at the polls.

Terminology IS a problem. That's why we endlessly discuss what a fundamentalist is. Have a little sympathy on us!

As far as 2 Peter 3:8-9 goes, I am with Aaron. God is desiring an extended period of harvest. The "you" in the text (not willing for any of YOU to perish) is probably used generically for the elect, the same type of people for which Paul endured hardship (2 Timothy 2:10). Looking at it as prefigured by the feasts, the era from Penetcost to Trumpets is a long one!

Aaron, the monergism/synergism is not semantics, nor are Arminians monergists. Let me try to put it another way. John Murray wrote a book entitled Redemption Accomplished and Applied. That title is, quite literally, the classic Calvinist doctrine of salvation. Redemption, every facet of it, is something Jesus accomplished through his life, death, and resurrection. Everything else is application. So, what is faith? A benefit purchased once for all by Christ's work and applied to the elect by the Holy Spirit in time. The same is true of calling, regeneration, sanctification, etc.

So, in the classical Calvinist system, what does the death of Christ provide for the elect? Everything. All that the sinner exercises, including faith in repentance, is the Spirit's application of Christ's work. So, monergism.

In the Arminian systems, what does the death of Christ provide for all people? Prevenient grace. Prevenient grace is what is actually secured by the atonement. But, prevenient grace by itself doesn't save anyone. Faith must be added to prevenient grace to make it efficacious, and this faith comes from within the sinner, in no way gifted by the Holy Spirit. So, the death of Christ provides the opportunity for man to complete the saving transaction. So, Arminianism, even if it doesn't consider faith a meritorious work, is still synergistic.

In other words, simply saying "God grants the ability to believe" doesn't make it monergistic. If that were so, Catholicism also would be monergistic, in that sacramental grace grants the ability to fulfill the requirements of salvation. In fact, that's exactly what Catholics say about their own theology, and why they distinguish between condign and congruent merit.

I don't think this is necessarily true.

Even in Classical Arminianism, the atonement still provides everything. The difference is that Arminianism says all men retain the capacity to resist God's grace. Man plays no part in accomplishing his own salvation, only in avoiding it. Calvinism says the elect have no capacity to resist God's grace.

Either way, salvation is still monergistic, at least in some forms of Arminianism.

Dan: Even in the Augustine/Pelagius argument, partial disagreement with Augustine does not necessitate partial agreement with Pelagius.

This is correct.

John Wesley (Arminian) would not have agreed with Joseph Smith (Pelagius). Pelagius rules the religious I-15 Corridor. Those who believe that men are born in sin (whether Calvinistic or Arminian) are the biblical outposts.

Dan wrote:

It probably is true that most Progressive Dispensationalists are post-trib, but not all. I am among those who consider myself pretrib, although I am lenient toward other views. Saucy is a big Progressive Dispensationalist who is clearly pre-trib.

As far as 2 Peter 3:8-9 goes, Dan, you may be right. But the term "us" or "you" (I think there is a manuscript difference here but I might be wrong -- I am not in my office now to check) does not necessarily mean we humans, as pointed out in posts above. But, either way, I agree with you that the Ezekiel passage and others teach that God does desire all to come to repentance, at least in some sense.

Earlier I think you mentioned the boulemai vs. thelo difference. I taught that for years until I did a little research in Colin Brown. He claims that this difference in Greek terms is not legit. You might look Colin Brown over on this. Again, I am out of my office!

This thread has so many avenues to it, including monergism vs. synergism. I did want to make a comment about something not quoted in this post, the whole idea of prevenient grace. Wasn't that a Wesleyan innovation? That's how I recall it. Wesleyan Arminianism, while the most popular in our day, is not the only Arminianism. Good discussions, all.

Incidentally, those of us who are 4 pointer believe that Christ's death provided satisfaction for the sins of the world, not prevenient grace. The elect person believes, but he is first regenerated and coaxed along by Holy Spirit. We would not say, as 5 pointers do, that the death of Christ secured the salvation of the elect. We don't usually say anything, but I would say much of anything about when the salvation of the elect was in fact, secured. I say God's choice, not the atonement, secured the salvation of the elect, with the atoning providing propitiation and expiation (the only method of salvation) made active upon belief (a condition that God causes to be fulfilled, although the newly-regenerated person does the believing).

I completely agree with the use of Deuteronomy 29:29; there are certainly many things that God has not revealed. However, God has revealed to us Ephesians 2:8. Without going into great detail in argument, if "this" is referring to the previous clause (for by grace are you saved through faith), then faith is a subset of the whole of what is not sourced in self (this is based upon the use of "ek" with a genitive as indicating a "source" idea.) Certainly, faith is an action of which a person does, but it is not ultimately sourced in self. Hence, grace is guarded against man's taking to himself too much credit for his salvation and having room to boast. This is the point of my asking the questions you are responding to. Certainly, God is not believing for the person in a pantheistic sense, but it must be understood that this does not make man an ultimate source of his faith. I'm fine answering the question with "no" in both cases, but the question/dilemma can also be used to imply to much, and this is what I was aiming against. It is the self-sufficient assumption that often gets smuggled in by an improper answering of the question.

Dan,

Surely it both true and obvious that Christ is responsible for most of what is necessary for salvation. However, if man can boast in any part, no matter how small, it is not all of grace. If what makes me to differ from another is not God's sovereign grace that worked in me in a way it did not in another, then I can, and very well may boast. I can say, "Christ did almost everything necessary for my salvation, but I supplied the final ingredient, I exercised my free will to believe the gospel. My neighbor did not have the good sense to do so, though he could have just as easily as I, if he was wise enough. The reason I am saved and my neighbor is not is because I had better sense than he." That's boasting, even if it is only contemplated and left unspoken. That is what Calvinism eliminates. That is also what the Scripture eliminates, if I understanding it correctly.

Warm regards,
Greg Barkman

I cannot believe that I just endured all of the posts vs posts on a topic that has centuries of template arguments in which Scripture is manipulated to fit the system of soteriology desired. Let's reduce this to one of the best essays on the topic: It is J.I. Packer's Introductory Essay to John Owen's THE DEATH OF DEATH IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST. Have any of you paused to read, and re-read it? It rates with John Murray's REDEMPTION ACCOMPLISHED AND APPLIED.

But do not hazard into either of these unless you are willing to look honestly at your particular belief system (i.e., the real Gospel). What has happened to American churches since the late 19th century or what has befallen European evangelicalism even earlier? What did the Puritans give us in the face of rampant hatred for truth and treacherous times of persecution? Oh, we confidently say liberal theology brought down the churches power and influence (and it has some merit). But Spurgeon dealt with the Downgrade Controversy issue way before we met it full force.

Arminianism (or its other disguises) is not a sufficient proclamation of the whole truth. We are now saddled with easy-believism, with pragmatism, with relativism and conversely, we have a strict dividing line on Calvinism because the opponents cannot bear to lose what is not present in God's eternal plan or the fact that man has some role in his justification, i.e., free will. A previous post adequately discussed it -- we are sinners by nature, dead in sin, and as Romans 5 notes boldly that Christ died for the UNGODLY, ENEMIES, SINNERS, AND THE WEAK. Not very flattering, yes?

Man has a moral obligation to come to Christ BUT HE CANNOT UNLESS HE IS DRAWN BY THE SPIRIT THROUGH THE GOSPEL!!!! We were not left with a spark of spiritual light to allow us to chose -- election is a choice BUT IT IS GOD'S ALONE. And we, as evangelical Calvinists do not go "looking for the elect" because that is not our task. 1 Cor 3 makes God's plan of preaching and evangelizing clear - one plants, another waters, and God grants the increase. The time to stop defending the indefensible and the petty bragging of "my way" [Arminianism] is better than yours, blah, blah, blah.

Our nation is a cesspool of dead churches and not because of Calvinism but just the reverse. The sacrifice of expository preaching that is embedded with doctrinal truth has given way to our insatiable need for numbers, money, book sales, bus ministries, and all other forms of entertaining the goats which has borne its fruit in believers(?) being numb spiritually. We have churches full of babies, those who profess a spurious faith, and those who cannot even find the Sermon on the Mount in their Bibles. Thank you my Arminian brothers. Thank you for leaving churches who are more interested in lunch at noon instead of being hungry for the Word. Sermons with psycho-babble that are supposed to help those in conflict or make them feel better are loaded with wood, hay, and stubble and have greatly contributed to at least 2 generations of Biblical illiterates.

Thank the Lord that His people have not all collapsed under the weight of the now. A resurgence of Biblical preaching and teaching (nicknamed Calvinism) is moving across our land, through our denominations, and into the churches. People are almost shocked when they hear more about the person and eternal work of Christ. Diminish the Gospel in any way, and you have no Gospel. I love 1 Cor 1:30 -- the source!! And, last, learn how to be an interpreter -- 2 Peter 3 is about the Flood; the "all" and "whole world" verses are clearly understood in context. Either Christ died for someone or no one. The historical view is that the non-Calvinist leads to Unitarianism which leads to Atheism. But even Paul said in Phil 1:15-18, that even bad preaching can reap some results BECAUSE OF GOD ALONE. Peace, ya'll.

Yes, that's what I understood your point to be. I believe many (maybe all?) Calvinists agree with that.

That is not what I am saying. I have not asserted 1).

What I'm saying is:

1. The Bible teaches that faith is not a work.
2. Therefore, faith does not allow men to boast.

My contention is that the above is true whether faith itself is a gift.

Yes, I disagree with this.

I believe it is the Calvinist who redefines faith in such a way as to make it appear to be a meritorious work if man has it.

Is man justified by works if you call faith a work? No. Calling faith a work doesn't make it one.

Regarding Eph 2:8,

• Is salvation a gift? We both say yes.
• Is grace a gift? We both say yes.
• Is faith a gift? You say yes. I don't say no. I say it doesn't matter.

Salvation being by grace (a gift) is sufficient to eliminate any cause for boasting.

Aaron,

You analysis is thorough, and thought provoking. However, there is, it seems to me, a significant difference between the Arminian and Calvinist view. If faith, the ability to believe, is given to everyone equally, but some exercise this ability, and some do not, we are left with the same result. Those who choose to exercise their God-given ability have done something by themselves that others have not done. Since the choice to believe comes from man, not from God, this choice gives man a reason to boast. In answer to the question, "Who makes you to differ from another?" The Arminian answers "I did," but the Calvinist answers, "God did." Or the questions, "What do you have that you did not receive?" (I Cor. 4:7) yields opposite answers. The Arminian answers, "My decision to exercise the faith given to me by prevenient grace." The Calvinist answers, "Nothing, since God gave me the faith and the ability and desire to exercise it."

Am I still failing to understand something here?

Warm regards,
Greg Barkman

Yes. And even when we speak about Faith "in the sense of 'the act of believing' ", we always use terms like "accepting Christ as personal Saviour". We always emphasise how True Faith must always be oriented to the correct object of Faith; and how Faith is not conditional on the "strength" of the believing that we can drum up by screwing our eyes shut until steam comes out of the top of our heads, as though one could make the application of God's Grace any more or less real through the urgency of our wishing it.

Gifts are accepted; any "action" in believing is simple acceptance.

I guess it is just a semantic tangle: an "act", such as it is, has been mistakenly equated with "work" because Work is an action, or necessarily involves Action. True, accepting gifts or opening one's mouth to receive a sip of water from a good Samaritan also require an action; but are they "work"? I think "Work" is a subset of "Action", not the other way around. Furthermore, I think what constitutes "work" is a little fluid: Christ wasn't "working" on the Sabbath when He healed (an action). In fact, the nature of "Work" may be less about a given action or series of actions, and more about its purpose, motivation or accomplishment. Carpentry would have been work for Christ. And we speak of His "work" accomplished on the Cross. And perhaps things like His travail in the Garden and His temptation in the desert were work of sorts. But did Christ work at the things we commonly "work" at? Some extended effort toward an uncertain outcome is implied there. Did He have to work at preparing a better sermon than the week before? Not only was He infinitely capable, but I don't think He had to preach or heal in exchange for bread or lodging. A machine may "just work" because that's the purpose for which it was created; and similarly, someone may work out of simple pleasure or in order to accomplish a worthy goal. But, "working" usually implies some kind of necessity or compulsion to work, in order to live or to get ahead. On the other hand, "good works" are expected of us, precisely because they are performed without any thought of personal gain (interestingly, the "ability" to do such works are a gift, too; and if we were to boast about the doing they may cease to be Good Works because we would be looking to gain favor from men).

Another contribution to the semantic tangle:
To turn "the act of believing" into "work", one must add further action to it: such as, Mr Barkman's "he produced the required faith." Producing in this sense is like creating ex nihilo, and no-one said anything about that. True Faith is produced by God because it requires a True Object; there would be no Faith otherwise. Man acts in or responds by Faith at the moment of Salvation. That act, perhaps more passive than producing said faith, is required of man. This is his part. And yet insisting on the Arminian's "producing" faith implies the view faith as a kind of "screwing-our-eyes-shut" endeavour which is clearly at odds with Scripture, because, as Aaron noted, "in Scripture, there is zero possibility of any kind of 'faith' being a 'work'." We rightly act on this very assumption when, every other day of the week, we are all (Calvinists and Arminians alike) at pains to deny that a "screwing-our-eyes-shut" kind of faith is a true, saving Faith. But apparently it is OK to invoke this view of faith as a straw man when arguing against Classical Arminianism.

In any case, Christ overturned some common conceptions and misconceptions of "Work"; so, unless we are going to parse "works" out to every degree to which we may or should perform a given action on a given day, we had better leave Faith right out of any equation involving Work. Certainly, "Works Salvation" (in which one may boast) implies performing an action or actions for recompense or reward (Salvation); and thus any "'good' works" thereby done cease to be good works; furthermore, the outcome is, without exception, never in any way considered assured -- there is yet some weighing of the works to be done. In contrast, the "act" of believing involved in accepting Christ by definition acknowledges the underserved, assured and effective Gift.

Well, I don't believe that Eph 2.8 teaches that God awakens a sinner, gives the gift of faith, etc. The antecedent's are not correct. Faith is feminine, 'this' is neuter.

Not to get into a big discussion, but simply to state my view succinctly. Salvation is the gift, not faith.

Anyway, I have discussed this one so many times in so many places, I hesitate to jump back in anywhere. Just occasionally dipping my oar in! So I'll bow back out now...

I think I am failing to understand something here (or before):

Does "...lest any man should boast" mean that God must completely forestall or negate the merest possibility that any single man at any point in history could have a go at attempted boasting, no matter how unsubstantiated his boastful claims may be? Must God make it a logical and causal reality that there is no part in the whole process (and little do we understand of that process) that man can play or take, and thereby quash the merest hint that there could be anything that a man could have "contributed" to the process and of which he could even unjustifiably boast in his wildest dreams, let alone justifiably boast?

• Man can and does boast, all the time, about the littlest thing.
• Can men boast of matters regarding salvation? They do in this life. There is lots of pride over having a corner on the truth, the correct interpretation, the inside track, enlightenment, tradition, scholarship...
• Do men boast about what or "who makes them to differ from another?" Indubitably.

My trouble is this: given the three statements above, must that inevitably lead one to conclude that God must therefore, or that He has decided to, engineer a process of Salvation in which man can play no part whatsoever? To me, that conclusion is not warranted. To me, that conclusion smacks a little of the extreme conservative tendency to attempt to make rules against anything and everything in order to curb any opportunity for sin. The sin just pops up somewhere else, in the heart, or in private, or out of sight. God is not officious; He does not say, as we so often do: "well, since you can't do something right, I guess I'm just going to have to do it all myself." That would go against His Grace (and His purpose for mankind, as opposed to angels). An extremely conservative view could be re-making God in our image a little bit (as could the other end of the spectrum, which is why I appreciate the balance that Aaron has shown).

Rather, I take "lest any man should boast" to be more about how man will have no leg to stand on, should he boast. That man will, in fact, have nothing of which to boast. Does the dying man boast of taking his reviving breath? Or, when he is "terminal" and is subsequently granted a reprieve through a miracle treatment, does he boast that he signed the release form? It is quite another thing to demand or expect that reprieve or treatment due to who he is or how much money he has; with Salvation, everyone is in the same boat on that score.

Even when Arminianism is revealed to be the more accurate portrayal of the reality wrought by God , a man will have nothing of which to boast, because God has provided the means of Salvation in Christ. Claiming he has two legs does not mean a man has two legs (my version of the dog analogy), when in fact he has none before the throne of Grace. In the meantime, he may yet tell everyone he meets that he has two legs -- despite his crawling around with the rest of us.

But I think most people who have "received" a real gift understand the true nature of gifts and how gifts are undeserved. If they don't understand that, then have they truly received or accepted it (an action)? And if not, then how has it benefited them, and of what may they boast? Having received it, they may yet "boast" that the giver loves them -- but I think that is a legitimate boast, as Paul boasts of Christ.

Therefore, I don't think Armenians are any more or less likely to boast in anything than anyone else. It was brought up in a previous comment (by Dan?) that Calvinists have at least as many opportunities to boast (and all just as unfounded). See, I think you have posed a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question, framing it in such a way that it draws the conclusion you want to reach about Arminianism. This kind of distorts the reality and does some injustice to the Arminian position by stereotyping it a little. One can just as easily ask hypothetical questions of Calvinists...

Why this question: "Who makes you to differ from another?" [which is interesting given the equal-rights versus equal-opportunities debate that often preoccupies American Christians]

Why not this question: "What makes your Gospel presentation result in a "won" soul in one case, when another man's Gospel presentation (an Arminian's, say) did not in a similar case?"

I wonder what might be some stereotypical answers to that question.

Balognah! (or to put it in the Heb. plural "Balognim" -- because that argument is worth at least two Balognah)

Well, the neuter antecedent argues against the view, but so does the use of "through faith". The use of 'dia', I think is agency or means. So faith isn't the gift itself.

But here is Wallace on 'touto'. He doesn't settle the question syntactically, but he puts to rest the specious argument JohnBrian referenced above.

So, the speaker in JohnBrian's link is in error. He is trying to express the third view and link "grace", "saved", and "faith" individually to "that not of yourselves". That is not what the third view is saying. The third view is "grace-by-faith salvation" as an undivided concept is the referent for "touto" (and that).

And, as Wallace says, one can't solve the issue by grammar alone. However, I think the grammar proves that we can't dogmatically assert faith as a gift from Eph 2.8. That much at least is clear.

Good spirited discussion. However, I think some of it misses the point. The issue is not whether faith is the ability to believe or the act of believing, but, 1) whether man has the capacity to believe without God's enabling, and 2) if God must enable, does He enable only the elect, or does He enable everyone equally. I would seem that nearly everyone rejects # 1, so that leaves # 2 to examine.

If God enables everyone equally (Prevenient Grace), it is obvious that man must add something from within himself to lay hold of Christ for salvation. Otherwise, everyone would be saved by God's enabling act. Since that is not true, Prevenient Grace restores to all men the capacity to believe, but falls short of bringing them to saving faith. Man must add something that does not come from God. That's what makes the difference between those who are saved and those who are not. God, according to this view, rendered all men equally able to believe. Some men actually do believe, and others do not. Whatever makes the difference, that is what man contributes to his own salvation. Quibbling over whether faith is the ability to believe or the act of believing is not the issue. Whatever you call this "something," it comes from man, not God, and it gives those who believe a legitimate reason to boast, since they are alone responsible for whatever it was that made them differ from their neighbors who do not believe. (Thank you Aaron, for clarifying that boasting does not mean man can boast, even illigitimately. Men boast illigitimately all the time.) The Bible teaches that God has removed from salvation every legitimate opportunity for man to boast. Hence, the Arminian concept of Previenent Grace cannot be correct.

Only the Calvinist view leaves men with no room to boast, because the Calvinist believes that God does something for the elect that He does not for the non-elect. God enables the elect to believe. The elect believer cannot say that he differs from his neighbor because he added the necessary "something" to God's grace that makes the difference between believeing and not believing. The Calvinist acknowledges that the only reason he believed, and other did not, is because God did a work in his soul that was not done in others. No boasting here. All the credit for the Calvinist's salvation goes to God alone.

Cordially,
Greg Barkman

What causes one believer to quench the Spirit and another believer to not quench the Spirit?

I suspected no one would be willing to answer the question.

How can you know it's apples and oranges without knowing what the comparison might be?