"Barely Christian" – R.C. Sproul on Arminianism
I first encountered the term “High Calvinism” when I read Lewis Chafer’s systematic theology. This term is a bit old-fashioned now, of course. If someone is a “High Calvinist,” it means he’s very Reformed in his soteriology. This surely described R.C. Sproul!
In a book entitled Willing to Believe: Understanding the Role of the Human Will in Salvation, Sproul provided a short historical theology of this topic by examining nine different theologians and their soteriological positions. In this excerpt, Sproul frames one part of this important issue:1
This classic issue between Augustinian theology and all forms of semi-Pelagianism focuses on one aspect of the order of salvation (ordo salutis): What is the relationship between regeneration and faith? Is regeneration a monergistic or synergistic work? Must a person first exercise faith in order to be born again? Or must rebirth occur before a person is able to exercise faith? Another way to state the question is this: Is the grace of regeneration operative or cooperative?
Monergistic regeneration means regeneration is accomplished by a single actor, God. It means literally a “one working.” Synergism, on the other hand, refers to a work that involves the actions of two or more parties. It is a co-working. All forms of semi-Pelagianism assert some form of synergism in the work of regeneration. Usually God’s assisting grace is seen as a necessary ingredient, but it is usually dependent on human cooperation for its efficacy.
The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also that it must precede faith. Because of the moral bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed internally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration’s fruit, not its cause.
According to semi-Pelagianism regeneration is wrought by God but only in those who have first responded in faith to him. Faith is seen not as the fruit of regeneration, but as an act of the will cooperating with God’s offer of grace.
Evangelicals are so called because of their commitment to the biblical and historical doctrine of justification by faith alone. Because the Reformers saw sola fide as central and essential to the biblical gospel, the term evangelical was applied to them. Modern evangelicals in great numbers embrace the sola fide of the Reformation, but have jettisoned the sola gratia that undergirded it …
I agree with Packer and Johnston2 that Arminianism contains un-Christian elements in it and that their view of the relationship between faith and regeneration is fundamentally un-Christian. Is this error so egregious that it is fatal to salvation? People often ask if I believe Arminians are Christians. I usually answer, “Yes, barely.” They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency.
What is this inconsistency? Arminians affirm the doctrine of regeneration by faith alone. They agree that we have no meritorious work that counts towards our justification, that our justification rests solely on the righteousness and merits of Christ, that sola fide means justification is by Christ alone, and that we must trust not in our own works, but in Christ’s work for our salvation. In all this they differ from Rome on crucial points.
Packer and Johnston note that later Reformed theology, however, condemned Arminianism as a betrayal of the Reformation and in principle as a return to Rome. They point out that Arminianism “in effect turned faith into a meritorious work.”
We notice that this charge is qualified by the words “in effect.” Usually Arminians deny that their faith is a meritorious work. If they were to insist that faith is a meritorious work, they would explicitly be denying justification by faith alone. The Arminian acknowledges that faith is something a person does. It is a work, though not a meritorious one. Is it a good work? Certainly it is not a bad work. It is good for a person to trust in Christ and Christ alone for his or her salvation. Since God commands us to trust in Christ, when we do so we are obeying this command.
But all Christians agree that faith is something we do. God does not do the believing for us. We also agree that our justification is by faith insofar as faith is the instrumental cause of our salvation. All the Arminian wants and intends to assert is that man has the ability to exert the instrumental cause of faith without first being regenerated. This position clearly negates sola gratia, but not necessarily sola fide.
Then why say that Arminianism “in effect” makes faith a meritorious work? Because the good response people make to the gospel becomes the ultimate determining factor in salvation. I often ask my Arminian friends why they are Christians and other people are not. They say it is because they believe in Christ while others do not. They I inquire why they believe and others do not. “Is it because you are more righteous than the person who abides in unbelief?” They are quick to say no. “Is it because you are more intelligent?” Again the answer is negative. They say that God is gracious enough to offer salvation to all who believe and that one cannot be saved without that grace.
But this grace is cooperative grace. Man in his fallen state must reach out and grasp this grace by an act of the will, which is free to accept or reject this grace. Some exercise the will rightly (or righteously), while others do not. When pressed on this point, the Arminian finds it difficult to escape the conclusion that ultimately his salvation rests on some righteous act of the will he has performed. He has “in effect” merited the merit of Christ, which differs only slightly from the view of Rome.
Notes
1 R.C. Sproul, Willing to Believe: Understanding the Role of the Human Will in Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 22-27.
2 Sproul is referring to an introduction J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnson wrote for an unnamed edition of Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will, which Sproul quoted in his own book. For sake of space, I removed these quotations for this excerpt.
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
[Jay]Thanks for the notes. I’m afraid if I was in your class, I’d be raising my hand and asking how you could think “gift” means anything other than salvation.Tyler’s article gives an explanation of that perspective, so you’re off the hook. :)Hey Kevin,
This is what I wrote for the Sunday School class:
(duplicate post)
[Don Johnson]Saving faith is our own faith, we can exercise it if we will, and the truth of that does no damage to the doctrine of depravity or salvation by faith alone without works.
If I’m understanding you to say that faith is sourced in us; and that all mankind has such faith; and has the inherent ability to exercise it at will; why does Peter speak of it as “obtained like precious faith” [2 Peter 1:1]. Wouldn’t his statement indicate that it is a gift.
There is no dispute that we DO exercise this “obtained” faith in believing and coming to salvation.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[JohnBrian]Don Johnson wrote:
Saving faith is our own faith, we can exercise it if we will, and the truth of that does no damage to the doctrine of depravity or salvation by faith alone without works.
If I’m understanding you to say that faith is sourced in us; and that all mankind has such faith; and has the inherent ability to exercise it at will; why does Peter speak of it as “obtained like precious faith” [2 Peter 1:1]. Wouldn’t his statement indicate that it is a gift.
There is no dispute that we DO exercise this “obtained” faith in believing and coming to salvation.
Many commentaries agree with you, but whatever the faith is, it is described as “of equal honor with us” - an ambiguous phrase, to some extent, and it is received by the righteousness of Christ.
The phrase “of equal honor” (esv = “equal standing”) implies that a comparison is being made, perhaps between Jews and Gentiles, but surely between Peter and the recipients of the letter. They have the received the same faith. Questions arise from this: 1) Is this saving faith or the body of faith (ie, the apostolic doctrine, “the faith” for which we are to contend, see Jude)? 2) Is this a reference to the equal opportunity of salvation between the Jews and the Gentiles, or at least between the recipients and Peter (or the apostles, with Peter their representative)? 3) Is it obtained as the ability to exercise saving faith or is it the authority to exercise saving faith? In other words, to those who receive Christ, he gave them authority to become the children of God (Jn 1.12). So is it access or is it enabling?
In any case, there is enough ambiguity in the verse that it isn’t an open and shut case for either point of view.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
What are the didactic passages that specifically address this issue? What do those passages teach about the “behind the scenes” action that results in salvation? The passages that imply an ordo salutis only in passing should be given secondary weight to the didactic passages.
If only there were a passage where Jesus discussed predestination! If there were only a passage where he had an extended dialogue about this very subject! If only it had been recorded for us! Heh, heh …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
The idea that 1 Cor 2:14 is about something after salvation seems to fly in the face of the context. 1 Cor 1:18 begins the section by talking about the foolishness of the gospel and how it is rejected as foolishness. Verse 24 makes clear that the only people who accept it are the called.
2:1-8 builds on this with Paul’s determination to depend on the simple preaching of the gospel to convert. It is God’s wisdom, not the wisdom of the rulers of this age who rejected Christ and crucified the Lord of glory because they did not see what God had prepared (v. 9—the gospel itself). But we have seen what they missed—the gospel and it is because of the work of the Spirit. There is nothing in 1 Cor 1 or 2 about some extra level of spiritual knowledge that comes after salvation. It is the gospel which is “the things of the Spirit of God” that must be spiritually appraised. The natural man in v. 14 is the unbeliever which is indicated by the “foolishness” that we already saw in chapter 1 as the mindset of those who reject the gospel.
Which takes us back to v. 24: the “calling.” The difference between those who see the gospel as “foolishness” (as in 2:14) and those who see Christ as the wisdom and power of God is the “calling.” It is a matter of judgment (or appraisal) of Christ. What makes the difference? It is the call. Before you have it, you reject Christ and the gospel as foolishness. You are, in the words of 2:14, a natural man. After you have it, you accept Christ as the wisdom and power of God. So the “natural man” who does not receive the things of the Spirit is, in context, an unbeliever (wise by the world) who does not receive the gospel (the things of the Spirit).
Part of the problem in this discussion (and myriads like it) is that people either don’t know or conflate biblical terminology. In this very discussion, salvation has been confused with justification; regeneration has been confused with indwelling. Yet historical orthodoxy has rightly distinguished these things. Proper distinctions are necessary for clear theology.
Perhaps you would delineate salvation from justification and regeneration with indwelling?
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Paul Henebury]Yes, and also maybe how these distinctions argue one way or the other?Perhaps you would delineate salvation from justification and regeneration with indwelling?
That’s not meant as a challenge. Mostly just curious.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Larry]The idea that 1 Cor 2:14 is about something after salvation seems to fly in the face of the context.
Larry, I’m assuming your reply regarding this point (interpretation of 1 Cor 2:14) is primarily in relation to my prior comment. While I can appreciate your attention to the fact that a salvific discussion occurs in the context, and in fact we each make the same point that the call of God through the gospel is critical to coming to faith (based on 1 Cor 1:18-24; see my last paragraph in that prior comment), I still maintain that the context in chapter 2 intentionally shifts away from the discussion of the gospel (of coming to faith) as the focus, and shifts to a discussion about true wisdom:
- Leading up to chapter 2, it is not until one is called that “what was preached” (1 Cor 1:21), “Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23), and “Christ Jesus” himself becomes “the wisdom of God” to that individual (1 Cor 1:24, 30). So it is not until belief that wisdom really begins to arise regarding what God has done in and through Christ.
- So Paul declares in 1 Cor 2:1-5 that the coming to faith is not about wisdom, but God’s power through the “testimony about God” (1 Cor 2:1), about “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2), and “the Spirit’s power” (1 Cor 2:4).
- But in context, he very evidently shifts in 1 Cor 2:6, “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing” (emphasis added). There is a shift, translating δέ in the NKJV as “however,” that wisdom is spoken to “the mature” (i.e. those who are believers, and even perhaps referring to more than mere “babes in Christ,” given his in context statement in 1 Cor 3:1 that spiritual things were still hard for such babes to handle in their carnality). This wisdom he is going to speak of is not of “this age,” which implies he is referring to “future age” things. He confirms this in 1 Cor 2:7 that he is talking of the hidden things related to what “God ordained before the ages for our glory” (that is, things related to the glorification of the saints). Had unbelievers been able to grasp what the glorified state planned for us really involved, they would never have crucified the One who would bring it about (1 Cor 2:8).
- And so my prior comment picks up in 1 Cor 2:9, that the discussion has shifted to “the things which God has prepared for those who love Him,” and as I noted, “those who love Him” are those who believe, and the “things” are those future things of glory that come about in relation to our salvation. It is these “things” that form the context of 1 Cor 2:10-16, and are the things the natural man cannot receive, nor even grasp, and are also foolishness unto them (just as it was noted the gospel of Christ crucified was as well, 1 Cor 1:18).
So the whole reason I hold to my view of that passage is precisely because of the context (to me clearly) shifting focus on wisdom being about the things of glory for those who believe.
[Larry]In this very discussion, salvation has been confused with justification; regeneration has been confused with indwelling. Yet historical orthodoxy has rightly distinguished these things. Proper distinctions are necessary for clear theology.
I actually agree with you on this point, that things can get conflated that sometimes ought to be more distinct. Paul had a follow up question for you on delineating “salvation from justification and regeneration with indwelling,” that Aaron seconded. I certainly cannot answer for Larry, but my specific delineation would be this:
- Salvation, technically, is being saved from the second death (the casting into the lake of fire; Rev 20:11-15) that is due all those whose works are not seen as righteous as they were designed to be in reflecting the God they were designed to be like (Gen 1:26). While salvation does include such things as saved from the presence and power of sin, et al., the eternal dividing point between saved and lost is whether one is facing this fate of second death or not.
- Justification is the crediting (accounting/imputing) of righteousness that comes through faith (Rom 4:5, et al.), which causes God to not judge believers’ righteousness by their works (Rom 4:4; Rev 20:12), but by Christ’s righteousness (which is equal to God’s and fully like God’s, as man was designed to be). Justification is needed for salvation (so there is a distinction, even though one flows from the other).
- Regeneration is the cleansing of the human spirit by the renewing (παλιγγενεσία = “regeneration” in many translations) of the human spirit’s nature (Titus 3:5) from that of a sinful nature, setting up the conflicts of believers between the new spirit with the still sinful flesh (Rom 7:22-24), the new man that believers are to put on versus the old man we are to put off (Eph 4:22-24).
- Indwelling is the cohabitating of God’s Holy Spirit with those who are Christ’s (Rom 8:9-11; 1 Cor 3:16; 2 Tim 1:14; James 4:5, 1 Jn 4:13), which are those who now have a regenerated human spirit, which regeneration is needed for the renewal of such a relation with the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). This cohabitation is dependent upon one first coming to love God (Jn 14:15-17; note the order and condition, “if you love … ” then “the Father … will give you another Helper … the Spirit of truth”; likewise Eph 2:19-22, it is only after becoming a “member of the household of God,” through “having been build on the foundation of the the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” [i.e. the testimony of those messengers of the good news during the various phases of history] , that the foundation so in place makes for a fit place to then become “a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit”).
Related to the topic here about coming to faith, all of these things come after belief, after that love of God has come into our hearts (1 Pet 1:7-9; genuine faith is a love for Jesus), which love comes because of recognizing God first loved us (1 Jn 4:19), and His love continues because of our love for Jesus (Jn 16:27). It is the receiving of Christ, which is “those who believe in His name,” that gives one the “right [ἐξουσία, in this context I think = free liberty] to become children of God” (Jn 1:12), which right “to become” God’s child, only occurs as a an actual becoming by “a birth from God” (Jn 1:13). This birth, however, comes after the belief, for the belief is what gives one the “right” to be so born (God has only promised to save those who believe), and so faith manifests as love for God and leads immediately to that birth (1 Jn 5:1) so that the indwelling occurs, justification accounted, and ultimately salvation from the second death so that one lives eternally in the resurrected state.
It is for these reasons, and many more, that I believe an illumination upon the hearts of unbelievers must bring them to faith and love for God (through His power and calling through the gospel; Rom 10:14) before regeneration, indwelling, justification, and salvation occur. God can turn the hearts of unbelievers to Him, open their eyes and hears to hear, before regenerating their spiritual nature.
Scott Smith, Ph.D.
The goal now, the destiny to come, holiness like God—
Gen 1:27, Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:15-16
Yes, but…if regeneration is the impartation of life, it must precede faith in Christ and love for God. Spiritually dead sinners neither desire Christ, nor are they able to love God.
G. N. Barkman
And now, with Bro. Barkman’s last comment, we’ve come full circle to the original article, where Sproul says regeneration preceding faith is the essence of Reformed theology!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[G. N. Barkman]Yes, but…if regeneration is the impartation of life, it must precede faith in Christ and love for God. Spiritually dead sinners neither desire Christ, nor are they able to love God.
Of course, that’s what this whole discussion in this thread has been about, whether “impartation of life” (regeneration) is needed for faith, or whether God turn’s a sinner’s heart to faith (I use the term illumination) so that faith is needed for “impartation of life.” I believe the Scriptures testify to faith preceding life; God can make even a “dead sinner” hear and believe. Others believe as you do.
Scott Smith, Ph.D.
The goal now, the destiny to come, holiness like God—
Gen 1:27, Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:15-16
I believe that’s because logic is being placed above Scripture
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Aaron Blumer]Paul Henebury wrote:
Perhaps you would delineate salvation from justification and regeneration with indwelling?
Yes, and also maybe how these distinctions argue one way or the other?
That’s not meant as a challenge. Mostly just curious.
The point of all this is to arrive at an order which best represents what the Scriptures actually say. From my point of view calling must come first. But then we must understand that regeneration cannot occur without receiving the Spirit, and the Spirit is received through faith (Gal. 3:14). All agree that justification is after faith.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
But then we must understand that regeneration cannot occur without receiving the Spirit
I can’t help but notice the lack of Scripture for your first assertion. Is there a reason?
Honestly Larry, how do you suppose a person is regenerated without the Spirit? But since you asked, see John 3:6-8.
And just in case this is needed I copy here what I pointed out earlier from Murray:
Here’s John Murray:
A man must surely be born again before he can be sanctified. Regeneration is the inception of being made holy and sanctification is the continuance.” - Redemption Accomplished & Applied, 80
See how Murray equates being born again with regeneration?
Again,
God effects a change which is radical and all-pervasive… a change which is nothing less than a new creation… This, in a word, is regeneration.” - Ibid, 96
And finally,
Regeneration is the beginning of all saving grace in us, and all saving grace in exercise on our part proceeds from the fountain of regeneration. We are not born-again by faith or repentance or conversion; we repent and believe because we have been regenerated.” - Ibid, 103
Now I suppose that you might argue that being born of the Spirit and being indwelt by the Spirit can be separated somehow, but I don’t know how.
If I have answered your question adequately perhaps you would answer mine. I am just interested in your theological take since you stress the need for precision. We don’t necessarily have to agree.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Paul, thanks for the quote from John Murray clearly stating that regeneration precedes saving faith. How can you then use Murray to support faith before regeneration? I must be missing something.
G. N. Barkman
Honestly Larry, how do you suppose a person is regenerated without the Spirit?
I don’t know because I wouldn’t argue that. My only point was that in a discussion based on Scripture, there wasn’t any supporting that point, and it was tied to Gal 3:14 which may not be speaking about the same thing. I perhaps said that in an indelicate way so I apologize for that.
See how Murray equates being born again with regeneration?
I totally agree. Regeneration is the giving of spiritual life to the spiritually dead. The question is whether that is the same as indwelling or the “reception of the Spirit” in Gal 3. Or is it the same as effectual calling as some say?
Now I suppose that you might argue that being born of the Spirit and being indwelt by the Spirit can be separated somehow, but I don’t know how.
The argument would be that indwelling is the result of salvation or regeneration. One is indwelt because they have been regenerated. The Spirit takes up residence in those that are his. Again, this is a logical order, to a temporal one.
Theologically, in terms of precision, I think that regeneration follows faith because faith leads to life and I don’t think there are two kinds of life. So my ordo, on that particular point is effectual call (an enabling to believe), faith and repentance, regeneration. In preaching and teaching, and theologically, it is little different since I believe that that there is a sovereign, unilateral, and effectual work of the Spirit prior to belief. I call it effectual calling (the call of 1 Cor 1) while others call it regeneration.
I don’t see why it should be thought difficult to posit a distinction between the Holy Spirit’s operation and His indwelling. Do we not have a number of Biblical examples of the Holy Spirit acting upon someone in a way that is disconnected from indwelling? (Samson and King Saul come immediately to mind.) Surely it is not difficult to posit an act of regeneration, which enables the exercise of faith, which is followed by justification and the subsequent indwelling of the Spirit?
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]Paul, thanks for the quote from John Murray clearly stating that regeneration precedes saving faith. How can you then use Murray to support faith before regeneration? I must be missing something.
Fair question, GN,
I first used these quotes to show JohnBrian that Calvinists do equate regeneration and the new birth (not simply illumination). I copied it just in case we went down that road again. I highly respect Murray, but I don’t agree with him on the order of salvation, and was only trying to properly represent his position.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
I totally agree with your answer. In the question of regeneration preceding faith the exact meaning of regeneration is crucial. If I were being pedantic I would also define “sealing” (Eph. 1:13), since that is what joins reception and indwelling of the Spirit.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[G. N. Barkman]I don’t see why it should be thought difficult to posit a distinction between the Holy Spirit’s operation and His indwelling. Do we not have a number of Biblical examples of the Holy Spirit acting upon someone in a way that is disconnected from indwelling? (Samson and King Saul come immediately to mind.) Surely it is not difficult to posit an act of regeneration, which enables the exercise of faith, which is followed by justification and the subsequent indwelling of the Spirit?
But your examples are not good ones since they are not referring to regeneration; nor indeed the ordo. For the rest I refer you to my previous arguments. Summed up it is, Regeneration is the new birth through receiving the Spirit, which is based on a decision in our favor (Justification), which in turn is predicated on faith. The call must be enough to convince the elect, but it cannot be the new birth itself. To say so not only reverses Scripture, but it subverts God’s justice, since it has God release the guilty before they have been declared innocent.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Paul, I think I understand what you are saying. What’s interesting to me, is that your ordo is as much based upon logic as mine. We both claim Scriptural warrant, but each questions the validity of the other’s use of Scripture. We both believe our ordo is demanded because of logic. Check mate.
G. N. Barkman
Well, I am content to leave it there.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Discussion