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…

[Aaron Blumer] Classical Arminianism is not the work of slouches and is far better than the semi-Pelagian, Finneyist confusion that came along later—and way, way better than the self-contradictory, quasi-Pelagian mush many anti-Calvinists settle for nowadays!

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, http://www.amazon.com/Whosoever-Will-Biblical-Theological-Five-Point-Ca…] 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:

[Aaron Blumer] My counter-argument is pretty much a calvinistic one, since the belief-enabling grace in Arminianism is not granted individually but rather preveniently to all who hear the gospel.

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace] Wikipedia entry:

Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer.

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, it took real courage to write this article! But you know, those of us who believe in Sovereign Grace (as I do) are often inconsistent with Calvinism, too. That is why I prefer the term “Sovereign Grace” or “Election.” For example, by a Calvinistic model, I am a 4 pointer. I believe God’s grace is too lavish to merely cover the elect without any grace left over. I do not embrace the old European “waste not” ethic of some of the Reformers. Yet a 5 pointer would claim I am inconsistent because I believe God’s election secured the salvation of the elect and that the atonement overpaid the debt of sin.

Many of us, perhaps yourself included, also see a duel track. There is a sense in which whosever will is true, and there is a sense in which no man can come unless the Father draws him, and the Father does not draw everyone. I used to often hear about the paradox of God’s sovereignty and free will (I prefer the term responsibility because I do not actually believe in free will), but that seems to have dropped out of modern discussions.

I have to affirm that your main point is valid about a hole in the realm of soteriology among those who reject Sovereign Grace. People want to take eternal security but not the basis for that security (God’s sovereign hand). They want to assert man’s free will, but, in essence, say after salvation that free will is removed (a saved person cannot choose to be lost).

Personally, I have found much appeal in Arminian viewpoints, although I usually disagree with parts of them. Yet, because they are not encapsulated with the Westminster Confession or a TULIP configuration, they often do a better job of thinking outside the box. Unfortunately Arminianism often borders on works salvation, but not always. Ben Witherington III is a commentator I do not always agree with, but he has to be one of the most amazing Bible scholars of our day. His commentaries are amazing.

Great, bold post brother!

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.

Thanks, Aaron. I get your point. It is the reason many of us Calvinists smile and say “Amen” to C.S. Lewis and A.W. Tozer while we cringe at Rob Bell and Greg Boyd.

Thanks for taking a few hits for the team.

Aaron, I appreciate the spirit of this article.

I find both Calvinists and Arminians, in their attempts to reconcile the various passages, explaining away the few passages that trouble their system. When this happens on both sides, it ought to be a sign to us that neither system is sufficient to completely explain the fullness of soteriological truth.

The soteriology chapter in that textbook, which attempts to pass its anti-Calvinist polemicizing propaganda as “biblicism” is a perfect example of “with the result that their views are incoherent. Coherent Arminianism is better than any view that is tripping over its own answers to the fundamental questions.” The best (or worst) part was when Towns attempted to alter the long and commonly understood meaning of certain words (i.e. election and predestination) because said meanings were inconvenient to his “biblicist” system.

As for the Arminians who object to being called Arminians … well wow, how many “Calvinists” are actually “Calvinists” (meaning that they agree with Calvin’s entire system, and not just the soteriology)? If they want a better name for themselves, it is their responsibility to pick one (and no, we are not going to go along with their propaganda and trash our own beliefs by calling them “biblicists.”)

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/20080120WG…

The whole series is linked here

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

And on iTunes via podcast.

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

[Aaron Blumer]

[Don] 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.

I think you kind of missed my point. I’m serious about the title of the essay. I have a great deal of respect for the Arminianism that came from Arminius, though it does not represent my own views. And the piece is intended to illustrate that many out there today have not thought their soteriology through—with the result that their views are incoherent. Coherent Arminianism is better than any view that is tripping over its own answers to the fundamental questions.

So I’d rather see “in betweeners” go a bit further one way or the other than have a random soteriology. I’m not ready to say that neither system can be modified at all, but these were very serious men trying to answer very important questions biblically (the men I refer to are mainly Augustine and later Calvin and Arminius and their proteges).

What I am pointing out is that Calvinists tend to use the term ‘Arminian’ to describe all systems that are not Calvinist. But doing so is a misuse of the term. Most of those who it is wielded against are not Calvinists, but they are not Arminians either.

Further, I think it is a mistake to assume that someone who isn’t either an Arminian or a Calvinist is guilty of ‘random soteriology’, ‘semi-Pelagian mush’, or hasn’t thought through the issues.

I think you can find thoughtless people at all points along the theological spectrum. I could say I find a LOT of them at the C end, but I don’t want to inflame things!!

[G. N. Barkman] 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.

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.

[G. N. Barkman] 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.

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.)

Don, I think your point is sound. I’m deep enough in Reformed-land that I know people who get angry when 4-pointers call themselves “Calvinists,” yet these same people lump all non-Calvinist view under the term “Arminian.” It’s not fair, nor is it helpful. Plus, there’s something patently absurd about labeling confessional Lutherans or Catholics as Arminians, since these views existed before Arminius (or Calvin!) ever wrote a thing.

However, I do think that non-systematic mush is extremely common in the US outside confessional Protestantism and Catholicism. For example, Norman Geisler is a very well respected evangelical theologian. He has been the president of ETS and written an influential 4-volume systematic. His soteriological views are an incoherent mess, and I don’t say that merely because I disagree with him.

He participated in the Zondervan volume http://www.amazon.com/Views-Eternal-Security-Matthew-Pinson/dp/03102343…] Four Views on Eternal Security . That volume included Michael Horton (Classical Calvinism), Geisler (Moderate Calvinism), Stephen Ashby (Reformed [Classical] Arminianism), and J. Stephen Harper (Wesleyan Arminianism).

Now, the remarkable thing is that Geisler, while disagreeing with all the accepted points of Calvinism, nevertheless styled himself a “moderate Calvinist” because of his belief in eternal security. However, the two Arminians, in their responses, lambasted Geisler. They said that he was no Calvinist, nor even an Arminian, but some sort of confused semi-Pelagian. Had that come from Horton, the reader might pass over it as overzealous Calvinism, but when two Arminians starting throwing around the big P-word, we need to listen. If a man as intelligent and well-educated as Geisler doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about in this area, I fear for evangelicalism.

So in your view, is God’s will eternally flouted by the existence of sinners in Hell? Is He standing helplessly by as His will is defeated by millions who reject His offer of salvation? If so, as the old saying goes, your God is too small.

Aaron,

Let me attempt to answer this question you posed.

There are numerous examples in Scripture of people not doing the will of God, Matthew 5:21 would be an example. I believe that God’s sovereign plan can not be thwarted, but I would agree with Dick that there is a difference between God’s predetermined plan and God’s desire. So, my answer is that God’s will is no more flouted by those who go to hell, then by those that Jesus was referring to in Matthew.

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!

First off, I have to admit something. When I referenced Matthew 5:21 I meant Matthew 7:21, but I guess both verses work, but it is completely coincidental :)

It seems counterintuitive that God has made a plan that includes things He doesn’t like, but there seems to be no way around that.

I am glad to hear you say this, because one of my problems with Calvinists is that is seems to me that what it comes down to is that they can not accept this seeming contradiction. Maybe I am wrong, I don’t know.

I thought your explanation of the “conflict” is pretty good. I would say that the conflict would be that God want us to do His will, but He also wants us to choose to do His will. The second desire being greater than the first. I don’t see this conflict as being contrary to the character of God at all. Jesus had a conflict within Himself in the garden.

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”.

[Don Johnson]…I reject full blown Arminianism! (I reject the ‘broadly evangelical gospel’ too…

And we know you’re not a Calvinist either.

I suspect a well-written article detailing your non-Calvinist, non-Arminian, non-broadly evangelical soteriology would likely be posted here, and I, for one, would love to read it (even over at oxgoad.ca).

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.

Since no one else has mentioned it, I would like to suggest a simple solution to the seeming tension in II Peter 3:9. If we will pay close attention to the pronouns, and the clear distinction between the statements Peter applies to “us” and “you” in contrast to the ones that apply to “those” and “them” (in the context of the entire chapter), the verse isn’t very conflicting. With that in mind, Peter says, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some (of them) count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any (of us, that is the elect) should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

As Aaron noted, the main point is that God’s seeming delay of the second coming is to give time for “all” to come to repentance. But, as Aaron (or someone) also noted, if “all” means everyone in all the world, Christ could never come as long as anyone remains unsaved. The solution is to realize that “all” here means all the elect. When the last elect child of God believes, Christ will return, not before.

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.

Part of the tiny world of many Calvinists is to assume that those who are not Calvinist are de facto Arminians of some form or another. Of course beyond the tiny world of such people one finds appreciable recognition by other Calvinist of non-Calvinist views upon which they understand trying to force the label Arminian is inappropriate.

This is interesting …

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

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

(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.

[DavidO]

[Don Johnson]…I reject full blown Arminianism! (I reject the ‘broadly evangelical gospel’ too…

And we know you’re not a Calvinist either.

I suspect a well-written article detailing your non-Calvinist, non-Arminian, non-broadly evangelical soteriology would likely be posted here, and I, for one, would love to read it (even over at oxgoad.ca).

So I don’t think I’ll write that one.

However, I am going to write a review of the book I mentioned earlier in the thread and also a review of http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-Sovereignty-Molinist-Kenneth-Keathley/d…] Salvation and Sovereignty by Kenneth Keathley. The other book, Whosoever Will, is a cooperative effort and is the fruit of something called the John 3:16 conference, put on by non-Calvinist Southern Baptists. As a cooperative effort, it is uneven, but some of the chapters are quite strong, I think, especially the chapter dealing with the extent of the atonement. Salvation and Sovereignty is an attempt to give a thorough explanation of what is called a Molinist position (3 point Calvinism, if you will). I find a lot of agreement with the views in this book, but also some points of disagreement. I’m about half way through it just now, so it will be a few weeks before I can get to it. I need to sit down and write the review of the other one soon, though, or I’ll start forgetting things I want to say about it.

But to write a comprehensive soteriology? No, thanks. Too daunting a task, and others have already done a much better job than I could.

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.

[Aaron Blumer] If you restrict them entirely to what happens before the sinner believes, well, Arminius is monergistic also… don’t know about Wesley though.

Kevin Bauder made the point http://sharperiron.org/comment/18499#comment-18499] 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.

[aaron]…the cause of the gospel would be far better served if more anti-Calvinists would embrace some kind of coherent soteriology. Classical Arminianism is not the work of slouches and is far better than the semi-Pelagian, Finneyist confusion that came along later—and way, way better than the self-contradictory, quasi-Pelagian mush many anti-Calvinists settle for nowadays!

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

Thread I started on Oct 30, 2010 - http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-monergism-vs-synergism-%E2%80%93-pa…] Monergism vs. Synergism – Part 1

On the subject of monergism and syngerism, what do you think of the possibility that “by grace you have been saved through faith” in Ephesians 2:8 is the “gift” in the same passage? From Wallace’s Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, page 335:

On a grammatical level… it is doubtful that either “faith” or “grace” is the entecedent of touto… touto regularly takes a conceptual antecedent. Whether faith is seen as a gift here or anywhere else in the NT is not addressed by this.

He certainly leaves the door open syntactically, but the neuter touto certainly has connections with multi-word concepts in the NT. Wallace lists 14 different passages where kai touto refers to the whole concept previously mentioned. If this is the case, the whole process of grace through faith would be considered a gift. Just floating this out there for discussion… if we grant that faith is a gift, can we say that the faith is ultimately their own, and then say that the belief is truly synergistic?

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.

NAU Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

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.

http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-ephesians-28-what-gift] Ephesians 2:8: What is the Gift? started by Jack Hampton on Nov 5, 2010

Jim McClarty ( http://youtu.be/NfEZZOeflL8] in this video - 7:50 ) dealt with the gender dispute in this passage at the 2008 Sovereign Grace Bible conference.

[Don Johnson] 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.

NAU Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

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 http://youtu.be/QsPzSKI6jvY] this video - 6:15 on 1 John 5:1

[Aaron Blumer]

Interesting you mentioned that. A writer over at Society of Evangelical Arminians says all systems are ultimately synergistic in some sense because the sinners faith is his own. God does not believe for him. I’m thinking he’s got a point there.

But it all depends on how you use the terms “monergism” and “synergism.” If you restrict them entirely to what happens before the sinner believes, well, Arminius is monergistic also… don’t know about Wesley though.

That’s a misuse of terminology. Monergism is the belief that all the power in salvation stems from one source, God. So, the fact that man himself is the believer is irrelevant, for monergists hold that the faith comes from God as gift. It does not arise independently in man. That’s entirely different than synergism, which views faith as an independent contribution from man’s side to make God’s offer of salvation efficacious.

On the issue of universal prevenient grace, I confess I find it a useless doctrine. In the Arminian systems, natural depravity and prevenient grace so cancel each other out that to believe in both is exactly the same as believing in neither. It means that no person has ever actually experienced depravity b/c of the buffer of prevenient grace. That is why, functionally speaking, there is little discernible difference here between Arminianism and certain permutations of Pelagianism.

This http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sovereignty/StillSovereign.htm short article by Thomas Schreiner nails the problem with prevenient grace.

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.

But since I didn’t want to get drawn into the debate… and shouldn’t have even contributed my “erg” post in consequence. So I’ll let it drop…

With just this parting shot… Rm 4.5 demolishes synergism. It just isn’t possible. And I’ll leave it at that.

[JohnBrian]

[Don Johnson] 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.

NAU Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

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 http://youtu.be/QsPzSKI6jvY] this video - 6:15 on 1 John 5:1

[Mike Harding] 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.

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!

[Aaron Blumer] My main point in the post is that most anti-Calvinists are not really Arminians, but would be better off if they were Arminians. So, though I can’t speak for “Cavinists” generally, which is a pretty broad category, for my part, “Arminian” is not a term of derision but a term of respect. But I do use it more narrowly than history probably warrants. I’m kind of trying to deny the title “Arminian” to the perspectives that buy into Pelagius. That’s probably a loosing proposition, but “classical Arminian” is pretty much what I mean when I say “Arminian.” Those who own the theology should fly the flag proudly.

I think it is a loosing proposition. Too many Calvinists are determined to label any form of Arminianism as pelagian. I find they are frequently only listening for an opportunity to cry, “Pelagianism.”

[Charlie] On the issue of universal prevenient grace, I confess I find it a useless doctrine. In the Arminian systems, natural depravity and prevenient grace so cancel each other out that to believe in both is exactly the same as believing in neither. It means that no person has ever actually experienced depravity b/c of the buffer of prevenient grace. That is why, functionally speaking, there is little discernible difference here between Arminianism and certain permutations of Pelagianism.

Perhaps you misunderstand the idea of prevenient grace, since it does not cancel out depravity. If it did, there would be no need for a savior. What you described is functionally Pelagianism, but it is not Arminianism.

The belief in both prevenient grace and depravity of man is not at all the same as the belief in neither.

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

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.

Since not all people are saved we must choose whether we believe (with the Arminians) that God’s will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to human self-determination or whether we believe (with the Calvinists) that God’s will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to the glorification of his sovereign grace (Ephesians 1:6,12,14; Romans 9:22-23).

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.

Where does the Bible teach that God restrains Himself by His commitment to man’s free will? Indeed, where does the Bible teach the doctrine of man’s free will? If, by free will, you mean that man has the ability to choose according to his understanding and desires, we all, I think, agree. If, however, you believe that somehow man has either the ability or desire to choose contrary to his understanding and inclinations, you are teaching something contrary to the Bible. Spurgeon preached a famous sermon entitled, “Man’s will, bound yet free” to explain the distinctions required to properly understand this subject. Since the Bible tells us the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God, how does free will help him? He will not, indeed cannot choose what he cannot understand. As someone I read years ago put it, “Free will is not man’s salvation, it is his problem.” Unless God intervenes to enable the sinner to understand and desire what a natural man cannot understand and does not desire (men love darkness rather than light), his free will will always choose contrary to truth and righteousness. His will is enslaved by sin and blindness.

The problem is not man’s will, nor is his will a solution. The problem is with man’s nature, which is sinful, corrupt, blind, even spiritually dead from the womb, owing to Adam’s fall. Man needs Divine intervention to change his nature, else he is doomed to forever choose contrary to his own best interests. He doesn’t understand the truth necessary to choose in his best interests, so he will choose according to his sinful desires.

Free will? Yes, and no. Is the unregenerate sinner’s will free? Not if you mean neutral, able to choose unencumbered by his corrupted nature. Can the sinner freely choose? Yes, if you mean he is free to choose according to the desires of his nature, but that is no solution. Such choices seal his ruin.

[G. N. Barkman] Where does the Bible teach that God restrains Himself by His commitment to man’s free will?

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

[G. N. Barkman] Indeed, where does the Bible teach the doctrine of man’s free will?

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 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.

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!

[Ed Vasicek] 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.

Seems to me “Sovereign Grace” doesn’t mean what it sounds like it means? Maybe I’ll stick with “Biblicist” after all. :bigsmile:

[Ed Vasicek] 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.

This is off-topic, but in my limited exposure to progressive dispensationalism it has always been associated with a premillenial posttribulation view of eschatology. Are you posttrib?

[Ed Vasicek] As far as 2 Peter 3:8-9 goes, I am with Aaron.

My view of 2 Peter 3:8-9 is that it means God is longsuffering toward us (humans), not willing that any should perish. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but would prefer that the wicked turn from his ways and live (Eze 33:11). Allowing the wicked to choose to remain wicked is in conflict with desiring all to come to repentance. I don’t think it’s necessary interpret any to mean any of the elect or to define two wills of God in order to resolve the conflict.

Aaron, synergism, at least for most in the historical sense, like Charlie said earlier, has to do with the power that allows one to believe. I think this idea of God and man either working or not working together just muddies the water. For example, Luther, in Bondage of the Will quotes Erasmus with saying, ‘Moreover I consider Free-will in this light: that it is a power in the human will, by which, a man may apply himself to those things which lead unto eternal salvation, or turn away from the same.’ Luther goes on to rewrite it because that in itself, as he proves, is rather vague. He rewrites it like so, ‘“Free-will,” is a power of the human will, which can, of itself, will and not will to embrace the word and work of God, by which it is to be led to those things which are beyond its capacity and comprehension.’

Basically, the question of monergism/synergism has a lot to do with your view of depravity. If you believe man has nothing good within himself to will to embrace the word and work of God, and you believe God somehow gives man this power, then this is monergism. On the other hand, if you believe there is power within your will to will to embrace the word and work of God, and God does something, this is synergism. The act of believing, at least from what I have read of dead theologians, is still done by the believer. Luther and Pink both do a good job explaining how the power to will to embrace… can come from God while belief is our choice fit within C.