Wanted: More Arminians

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 started a new thread http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-2-peter-39] 2 Peter 3:9 so as not to hijack this thread.

[Charlie]

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.

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.

It just occurred to me, that the OP made heavy use of the the label “anti-Calvinist” but never used “non-Calvinist” - just thought I’d point out that they are not the same thing.

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:

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?

…

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.

__________________

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).

Regarding the opening post:

I’m writing this to express an appreciation for the opening post. It is a great example. I appreciate the call to really discern the meaning of the passage, as opposed to only “knowing” what it absolutely cannot mean. This much is exceedingly important; it is not enough to just simply have a negative hole; but one needs to discern the meaning of Scripture.

Regarding Terminology:

Personally, I do not like the terms “monergism” and “synergism” because of their lack of communicative value or clarity (for many are just not historically conscious). When someone is talking about “monergism,” it is not as though God is the only One in the universe who is doing any kind of action. There are two persons involved. There is a synergism of sorts. However, it is the “kind” of synergism that is at issue. Do God and man approach the synergism as two ultimate contributors toward salvation? Or do God and man approach the synergism as One ultimate contributor with two participants.

My personal preference is that one will not understand the issue until the issue of the will is discussed. It is at this point that I’m going to oversimplify, for the sake of space, two understandings of the will. One version is causeless or uncaused. It is not determined by anything. Therefore, it can be said to be ultimate in a sense, since nothing goes beyond it. On the other hand, another version/understanding of the will sees the will as always being caused; hence, it is never ultimate but rather secondary or proximate. The second corresponds to the providence of God and the mere fact that man is a creature who is always sustained.

What in the world does all of this have to do with Calvinism and Arminianism? Arminianism adheres to a will that is bound/in bondage/unable/depraved. I can pull up a quote of Arminius himself here if needed. In short, the will is determined by the depraved nature. However, prevenient grace comes along and makes a person able to accept or reject. It is here that the will is uncaused; it is supposedly lifted up out of its nature to make an uncaused choice between “A” or “notA” (libertarian freedom). It is ultimate then once it reaches this point. What does this mean? It means that the Arminian system equivocates on the definition of the will (from caused to uncaused). While this is a critique of Arminianism, I still wish to say that I appreciate it much more than Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and Finneyism. It, at the very least, adheres to the language of depravity.

The Calvinist view of the will never makes the will “ultimate” in any sense. It is always caused. By “what” exactly it is caused changes, but the will is never “God like” in terms of ultimacy. Hence, the Calvinist can rightly say that salvation is all of God (as its ultimate causal source), but at the same time there is a unequal synergism between God and man (Creator/creature distinction). However, the Arminian has to allow for man to be ultimate in sense described above. Therefore, at the point of decision, which God’s grace leads man to, man has the ultimate say. God is necessary, or man would never be brought out from his depravity; and man is equally as necessary, for God is not behind man’s will at the point of decision. The synergisms differ VERY significantly.

-Given an uncaused will, the question “Does God believe for man?” must be answered as a “no”.

-Given a caused will, the question “Does God believe for man?” must be a more nuanced “yes” and “no”. The nuancing would be found in a further/more detailed description of the will than what has been given so far. “No” in the sense that God is not pantheistic; He is distinct from His creation. He and the man are not one in a Pantheistic sense. However, the answer is “yes” in the sense that God is the ultimate causal source of man’s salvation.

I hope that this adds to clarity, as opposed to muddying the waters.

[Ed Vasicek] 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.

I was just curious - I’m post-trib and I don’t personally know anyone else who is. :)

[Ed Vasicek] 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.

You are correct that some manuscripts say “us” and some say “you”, and I agree that it does not necessarily mean what I say it means. But, I think it’s far more likely than limiting the scope of “us” or “you” based on the scope of “us” in 2 Peter 3:9, as I explained briefly in the 2 Peter 3:9 thread.

[Ed Vasicek]

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!

That must have been someone else.

[Ed Vasicek]

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.

Jacobus Arminius taught prevenient grace, though I don’t know enough about Wesleyan Arminianism to say how Wesley’s view may have differed.

[Aaron Blumer]

-Given an uncaused will, the question “Does God believe for man?” must be answered as a “no”.

-Given a caused will, the question “Does God believe for man?” must be a more nuanced “yes” and “no”.

Seems to me it has to be “no” either way. Even if one takes the view that the decision is fully “caused,” it is still the sinner who believes, otherwise, vast chunks of Romans (and lots of other passages) make no sense at all.

I don’t personally see what’s wrong with saying “We don’t know what the mechanism of choice really is, ultimately, but it is not a choice a sinner has any interest in making apart from grace, nor is it one he is “able” (I would say is not able because he has no interest) to make apart from grace.”

Add to that “No work on the sinner’s part contributes at all to salvation, but it is the sinner who repents and believes.”

A big part of the controversy over the centuries (at least among non-scholars) has centered on the question how far do we need to go in working through answers to the hard questions? Obviously as far as Scripture (thoroughly studied) can take us. Beyond that can be helpful—it’s often useful to have a theory—but we need not fault anyone for drawing the line there and pleading Deuteronomy 29:29.

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.

Did Arminius use the terms “caused will” and “uncaused will?”

If not, it may be the Calvinist who is equivocating.

[Aaron Blumer] In any case, when I use the word “equivocate” I mean using a word or phrase with one meaning in one part of an argument and then altering the meaning somewhat in another part of the argument. Maybe Webster is right and I’m wrong (imagine that!). (: But just explaining myself for what it’s worth.

You’re both right. Webster defined the word as used in every day English. You’re using it as defined in logic as a fallacy, as was I, and I assume Caleb.

What I meant was the equivocation may have been created indirectly by the Calvinist by defining terms and then imposing them on Arminius in such a away that it appears that Arminius equivocated when he actually did not (if Arminius did not use those terms himself). It would have been more accurate for me to call it a strawman rather than equivocation.

[Aaron Blumer] I don’t know if Arminius puts things in terms of caused and uncaused. From what I’ve read so far, it looks like he had a very high view of the activity of God in every part of salvation. But he was zealous to avoid making God “the author of evil.” It seems like his main beef with Calvinism was that—in his view—it made God the author of sin.

I’m not certain that he did not use those terms, but the earliest I’m aware of the terms “caused will” and “uncaused will” occurring in connection with the name Arminius was in a criticism of Arminianism by Jonathan Edwards.

As for caused or uncaused, it seems to me much ado about nothing. Regardless of one’s theology, how could anything other than God be uncaused? Even Richard Dawkins, celebrated evolutionist and atheist believes everything has a cause. He says there is no free will because every choice we make is the result of random interactions. Even if God created the universe, put things in motion, then left, everything had a cause. Whether the direct cause is a deity, genetics, the environment, upbringing or indigestion, no decision springs into existence without some relationship with other things that preceded it. Strictly speaking, only God is “uncaused.”

Suppose for a moment that faith does come from the person who believes, in response to the Holy Spirit and prevenient grace. The Calvinist says that would mean the man saved himself, he has reason to boast, his faith is a meritorious work. I say that’s nonsense. Jesus is the one who left heaven, was born of a virgin, lived as human, was tempted in all things as we are tempted, was scourged, crucified, separated from the Father, buried and rose from the dead. He’s the one who did all that, not me. There’s no way to make faith into a meritorious work, or something that gives me opportunity to boast.

Romans 2, 3 and 4 are foundational. No one can earn salvation though meritorious works. Abraham had no basis for boasting, why? Because Abraham’s faith, not works, was credited to him as righteousness. This is true whether you’re a Calvinist, an Arminian, or something in between. There is still no synergism.

Semi-pelagianism is the belief that man can seek God without any need for prevenient grace or drawing from the Holy Spirit. This is synergism.

I’ll repeat that I’m neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I need to learn to let it go, but it bothers me when Calvinists (some, not all) redefine Arminianism in order to call it semipelagian when it so clearly is not (I’m not suggesting that you, Aaron, have done that).

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

[G. N. Barkman] 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 didn’t intend to suggest there is no harm if only a little boasting is justified. My contention is that in either Calvinist or Arminian soteriology, there is no room for boasting.

[Rom 4:1-8 (NAS77)]

(1) What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?

(2) For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God.

(3) For what does the Scripture say? “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

(4) Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.

(5) But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,

(6) just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:

(7) “BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.

(8) “BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”

The fact that Abraham was NOT justified by works eliminates anything to boast about. An Armininian can no more boast about having faith than a Calvinist can boast about being one of the elect (and I have known a Calvinist or two that did).

There is just no way to make faith into a meritorious work. The Bible is very clear that justification by faith is something completely separate and distinct from justification by works.

Updated: I also wanted to mention earlier (but forgot) that I agree with what you said about free will in http://sharperiron.org/comment/29839#comment-29839] post #43 .

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.

Dan,

My point is that if man is able to take credit for his own faith, he has reason to boast. It is only if faith is the gift of God that man has no cause to boast. I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds to me like you are saying:

1) Man is, in some little way, responsible for his own faith.

2) The Bible teaches that faith is not a work.

3) Therefore, inherent faith does not allow men to boast.

My contention is:

1) The Bible teaches that faith is not a work.

2) If man is responsible for his own faith, it is a work.

3) Therefore, man cannot be responsible for his own faith.

Remember that old saw, “How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg?” (attributed, I believe, to Abraham Lincoln. Answer, “Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.” Calling faith a non-work, after defining it in such a way as to make it a work, does remove the obvious conclusion that a human generated faith IS a work, no matter what you call it.

Warm regards,

Greg Barkman

[G. N. Barkman] My point is that if man is able to take credit for his own faith, he has reason to boast. It is only if faith is the gift of God that man has no cause to boast.

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

[G. N. Barkman] I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds to me like you are saying:

1) Man is, in some little way, responsible for his own faith.

2) The Bible teaches that faith is not a work.

3) Therefore, inherent faith does not allow men to boast.

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.

   [G. N. Barkman]
   
   My contention is:
   
   1) The Bible teaches that faith is not a work.
   
   2) If man is responsible for his own faith, it is a work.
   
   3) Therefore, man cannot be responsible for his own faith.

   Yes, I disagree with this.

   [G. N. Barkman]
   
   Remember that old saw, “How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg?” (attributed, I believe, to Abraham Lincoln. Answer, “Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.” Calling faith a non-work, after defining it in such a way as to make it a work, does remove the obvious conclusion that a human generated faith IS a work, no matter what you call it.

   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.

Dan,

But it does matter. If faith is not a gift, then man can boast. He can boast that he produced the required faith. It is Only if faith is not a gift that man has no cause to boast.

[Aaron Blumer]

The result is that for both classical Arminians and Calvinists…

- Faith in the sense of “ability to believe” is granted as a gift

- Faith in the sense of “the act of believing” is what the sinner does

- Faith in neither sense is a “work” and in neither sense it is ground for boasting

- This is true regardless of whether the ability to believe is granted individually close to conversion or preveniently to everybody.

Thank you!

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

Faith isn’t the ability to believe, it is belief (or believing) itself.

For example, we wouldn’t translate Rm 3.28 this way:

NAU Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by the ability to believe apart from works of the Law.

(Note, all but the bolded section is NAU - the NAU says ‘faith’ there.)

[Aaron Blumer]

Here’s what we know:

Apart from grace a man does not believe.

When he believes, it is not a “work.” (In Scripture, there is zero possibility of any kind of “faith” being a “work.” They are always opposites.)

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…

[Don Johnson] 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.

In http://youtu.be/o3dodm97SY4] this YouTube video McClarty explains the neuter demonstrative pronoun.

In http://youtu.be/QsPzSKI6jvY] this YouTube video Piper shows how regeneration produces faith (with hand motions)! In essence, ‘Faith’ is the natural response of a dead heart being made alive.

[G. N. Barkman] 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

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.

[JohnBrian] In http://youtu.be/o3dodm97SY4] this YouTube video McClarty explains the neuter demonstrative pronoun

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

[Don Johnson]

[JohnBrian] In http://youtu.be/o3dodm97SY4] this YouTube video McClarty explains the neuter demonstrative pronoun

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

Well!

That’s certainly a solid refutation of his point, and your exegesis is unparalleled!

[Aaron Blumer] I also believe that the point of the two verses (Eph.2:8-9) is that salvation is a gift—completely gratuitous, in no way earned or deserved, though I think P. specifically identifies “faith” as a gift in that statement. But it’s not something I’m dogmatic about. In preaching I usually briefly mention both possibilities, then return to emphasizing what the point of the whole passage is.

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.

This is the most debated text in terms of the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun, touto. The standard interpretations include: (1) “grace” as anteced­ent, (2) “faith” as antecedent, (3) the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation as antecedent, and (4) kai touto having an adverbial force with no antecedent (“and especially”).

The first and second options suffer from the fact that touto is neuter while cariti and pistews are feminine. Some have argued that the gender shift causes no problem because (a) there are other examples in Greek literature in which a neuter demonstrative refers back to a noun of a different gender, and (b) the touto has been attracted to the gender of dwron, the predicate nomina­tive. These two arguments need to be examined together.

While it is true that on rare occasions there is a gender shift between antecedent and pronoun, the pronoun is almost always caught between two nouns of dif­ferent gender. One is the antecedent; the other is the predicate nom. In Acts 8:10, for example (outos estin h dunamis tou qeou), the pronoun is masculine because its antecedent is masculine, even though the predicate nom. is femi­nine. In Matt 13:38 inverse attraction takes place (the pronominal subject is attracted to the gender of the predicate nom.): to de kalon sperma outoi eisin oi uioi ths basileiaj (“the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom”). The construction in Eph 2:8, however, is not parallel because dwron is not the predicate nom. of touto, but of the implied “it” in the following clause. On a grammatical level, then, it is doubtful that either “faith” or “grace” is the ante­cedent of touto.

More plausible is the third view, viz., that touto refers to the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation. As we have seen, 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.

A fourth view is that kai touto is adverbial, though this view has surprisingly made little impact on the exegetical literature. If adverbial, kai touto is intensive, meaning “and at that, and especially,” without having any anteced­ent. It focuses on the verb rather than on any noun. In 3 John 5 we see this usage: piston poieis o ean ergash eis tous adelfous kai touto xenous (“you do a faithful [deed] whenever you render service for the brothers, and especially [when you do it] for strangers”). If this is the force in Eph 2:8, the text means “for by grace you are saved through faith, and [you are saved] especially not by your own doing; it is the gift of God.”

The issues here are complex and cannot be solved by grammar alone. Never­theless, syntactical considerations do tend toward one of the latter two views.

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.

[JohnBrian]

[Don Johnson]

[JohnBrian] In http://youtu.be/o3dodm97SY4] this YouTube video McClarty explains the neuter demonstrative pronoun

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

Well!

That’s certainly a solid refutation of his point, and your exegesis is unparalleled!

I am quite proud of it, myself!

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

[1Th 5:19] Quench not the Spirit.

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

Dan,

This is apples and oranges to the soteriology under discussion. You are dealing with regenerate issues. The question here pertains to the abilities the unregenerate man has to believe.

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?

Aaron,

Yes, man does the believing, not God. Man does something. He repents. He believes. The issue that you did not seem to address in your last post is the difference between what God does to everyone (Arminianism) vs. what God does only for the elect (Calvinism). In the Calvinist understanding, man’s ability to believe comes from God, enabling the sinner to believe, as well as giving him the desire to believe. When regenerated by God, the elect sinner cannot fail to repent and believe, for his nature has been changed, and now he sees what he could not formerly see, and desires what he did not formerly desire. When a sinner understands his true condition as a condemned sinner, and the beauty and sufficiency of Christ, he is irresistibly drawn to Christ. The sinner himself repents and believes, but the ability to understand his need and desire to believe comes entirely from God. The Calvinist understanding of “Prevenient Grace” is the grace that precedes the sinners faith, the divine operation that raises a spiritually dead sinner to life, which begins the work of salvation, in time, in the individual sinner’s soul. (Ignoring, for the moment the work that predates time.)

The Arminian scheme, in it’s effort to defend universal ability, has a different understanding of “Prevenient Grace,” already discussed above. Because this grace is (supposedly) granted to everyone equally, it clearly does not inaugurate a chain of events which always culminates in salvation. Rather, it simply renders the sinner, formerly ruined by Adam’s fall, capable of trusting Christ, if he so chooses. Since this grace is not necessarily effectual, it leaves the last essential component in saving faith up to the sinner. He supposedly has within him “something” that he can exercise, or not, to believe or not believe. Yes, I am somewhat ambiguous about this “something” because I do not find it in the Bible. I’m not sure what it is. The Arminian must tell us. I certainly cannot. Nor can I find anything in Scripture that teaches the Arminian version of Previent Grace. It seems to be a logical necessity, not a Biblically explicit doctrine.

Whatever this “something” is, is the part man contributes to his own salvation, and that is what enables the Arminian to boast. He added the “something” that God did not perform. It is true, as you said in the OP, that both Calvinists and Arminians teach that salvation is by grace through faith, and both teach that man, not God, exercises saving faith. However the Calvinist does not have a “something” that some men produce and others do not. Calvinists recognize that God regenerates the elect alone, enabling them to believe. Arminians believe God enables all men equally. At this point, salvation is of God alone. But as soon as one man exercises his God-given ability, and another does not, you are faced with the question of what made the difference? Not God. The difference is within men. Those who “improve” their prevenient grace are saved. Those who fail to do so are damned. Those who respond positively will, no doubt, give 99% of the credit to God, since He did almost everything necessary to their salvation. But 1% (or whatever), is not from God. It is solely from the sinner who did not refuse Christ and chose to believe. That “something” is what made the difference between the saved and the lost. God did not make the difference. Man did, and therein lies the legitimate basis to boast, and therein lies the fatal problem.

Thanks for a wonderful discussion!

Warm regards,

Greg Barkman

Perhaps it would be helpful to summarize this as follows. For the Calvinist, what makes the difference between those who are saved and those who are lost is God’s grace. God’s saving grace does something within the elect that it does not for the non-elect. Thus salvation is clearly all of grace, and man has nothing of which to boast.

Since the Arminian believes God’s grace (previenent grace) is bestowed upon all equally, God’s grace cannot be the sole reason for who is saved and who is not. If the same grace was given to the non-elect as the elect, grace does not explain the difference. What does? Something apart from grace. What is that “something”? That’s the heart of the issue, as I see it.

[G. N. Barkman] Those who “improve” their prevenient grace are saved.

No, that’s backwards.

Those who reject prevenient grace are lost. This is not just semantics. There is a material difference.

Dan,

I don’t see how that makes any difference. What makes the difference between the saved and the lost? (According to Arminian style previenent grace.)

You can answer either way:

1) The sinner does, by responding positively to previent grace.

2) The sinner does, by rejecting previent grace.

Either way, what ultimately makes the difference between the saved and the lost is something within the sinner. The sinner who is saved can say, “Well, at least I had the good sense not to reject God’s grace, as my neighbor did.” Thus he takes some credit for his own salvation.

Thanks for the exchange.

Cordially,

Greg Barkman

It is rather interesting (an elementary but pivotal point ) that in Acts 16:31 where the command is given “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved…”, the verb believe (pisteuson) is in the active voice instead of the passive voice.

The significance you ask?

• The active voice of a verb is used when the subject of the verb performs the action of the verb. And here the subject of the verb is “you”, the person being commanded. In other words, “You believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
  

• The passive voice is used when we understand that while the subject is connected to the action of the verb it is done so passively or in a manner where the subject receives the action of the verb. That is much like saying, “I am being baptized”.
  

The implication here is, of course, that if our believing is caused or accomplished by something outside of ourselves as is being asserted by some, the passive would be used to indicate this but it is not used, instead it is the active voice that is employed.

__________

The standard argument, of course, is the gross error of some that the person believing must have been regenerated first therefore he could believe and the active voice may be used. Again, though, even with this argument the passive voice would be appropriately used seeing that it is not himself but his regeneration which has come through divine agency that has caused his belief. The grammar would reflect the true nature of the action of the verb.

In reality the emphasis is on human volition, not divine agency, in the employment of the active voice for believing. The grammar points our attention to the proper concerns.

__________

Lest someone argue that the writer may not have been concerned about such discrimination (and if one did make such an argument it would be strange in light of divine superintendence) fortunately in the latter portion of the verse we do have a passive voice use which refers to divine agency doing the action of the verb, namely where it states, “and you will be saved…”. The word for saved (sozo) is in the passive voice. That means the subject (you) are saved but instead of you performing or doing the action of the verb (which would be the active voice indicating you saving yourself and not compatible with Scripture) you are receiving the action of the verb, which reflects God doing the saving.

And that is what salvation is, God doing the saving, which is indicated by the passive voice of saved. And the writer clearly is aware of the use of the passive and active voice since he employs both, right here.

Hence, when we look at believe we see the writer using the active voice, knowing full well he uses the passive voice with the word saved so as to communicate God performing the action of that verb and not the earlier one.

If the view of some that in his atonement Christ also provided our believing, the active voice would not be used, rather the passive voice for the command, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ…”.

*This should not be read with the assumption that I am attempting to articulate my own view in full or part or that I am an Arminian, I am not, but to point out one of the many problems with Calvinism when one engages in exegesis. Calvinism is very compatible with rationalism since it is built largely by means of rationalism but exegesis appears to be its worst enemy with regard to its proprietary doctrines.

J. Gresham Machen said:

“The efficacy of faith, then, depends not upon the faith itself, considered as a psychological phenomenon, but upon the object of the faith, namely Christ. Faith is not regarded in the New Testament as itself a meritorious work or a meritorious condition of the soul; but is regarded as a means which is used by the grace of God: the New Testament never says that a man is saved on account of his faith, but always that he is saved through his faith or by means of his faith; faith is merely the means which the Holy Spirit uses to apply to the individual soul the benefits of Christ’s death.” (p. 180-181, “What is Faith,” 1937, Banner of Truth Trust, edition 1991).

The philosophical construct of monergism v. synergism is not seen in the New Testament or the Old Testament. In salvation faith is not an attribute of the soul. In salvation it is contrasted to works (Rom. 4:5-8); and in sanctification is that which again is the means through which assurance and enablement are given. with a result that may see works (Heb. 11:1-39). For us to talk of monergism or synergism is to impose human thinking upon divine perspective. Faith alone is alone that works may not be in view. Reformed soteriology constructs false scenarios which cloud the simplicity of biblical salvation through true grace. Actually, the use of the word grace with faith does away with any concept that would make faith an attribute of the soul which man contributes to salvation his salvation.

Good discussion. Actually, Alex, exegesis is the Calvinist’s greatest friend. That’s how I became a Calvinist, and that’s how most Calvinists who were formerly non-Calvinists became such. Also, it turns out that though both Arminianism and Calvinism emply logic, it is actually Arminianism that most resorts to reasoning to fill in the gaps in Scripture, as with the Armionian doctrine of Prevenient Grace, taught nowhere in Scripture, but made necessary by the logic of Arminian assumptions.

No one on this tread has denied that it is the sinner, himself, who does the believing. (active voice) In fact, it has been clearly stated that it is the sinner, not God, who repents, and the sinner, not God who believes. There must be a disconnect somewhere, since non-Calvinists seem to think Calvinists are saying the God believes for the sinner. Who said that? Could it be that some suppose Calvinists logic demands this conclusion, even though every Calvinist I know says the opposite?

However, Alex has come to an important issue which I do not believe has not been clearly articulated on this thread The Calvinist understanding that regeneration precedes faith is foundational to much of this discussion. I would enjoy seeing Alex’s exegesis of I John 5:1, the text that John Piper said turned him into a convinced Calvinist. If Alex will give as careful attention to the verbs here as in Acts 16:31, he will see that regeneration precedes faith, a doctrine also taught in other passages such as John 3:3,5 and I Corinthians 2:14.

When that is cleared up, everything else becomes plain. Regeneration is the cause of believing, not the result. God gives new life to the elect sinner, enabling him to repent and believe. Faith is the result of the new birth. Thus it is the renewed sinner who exercies faith. He does the believing. God doesn’t believe for him. But he believes because of what God did in him. There is no question about his faith being the gift of God.

The Arminian is hard pressed to explain how a sinner, spiritually dead, is able to exercise saving faith. That’s why Prevenient Grace is needed. The sinner, born depraved, blind, spiritually dead, could never understand his perilous condition and consider Christ desirable. Voila! Prevenient Grace reverses the effects of Adam’s fall, and now he can understand and believe, if he will exercise his free will to do so. But there are problems. Problem number one: where does the Bible teach the doctrine of Prevenient Grace? Where are we told that anything short of the new birth reverses the effects of Adam’s fall. Number two: how do you explain the difference between those saved and lost without attributing the final component in salvation to man, not God, and thus having to explain the gracelessness of this component. If God only renders men able to believe, but just as able to reject (resistable grace), it is inescapable that man, not God, is ultimately responsible for his own salvation in that he alone, not God is responsible for that vital “something” that makes Christ’s atonement effective for that particular sinner. It’s a real problem that I wrestled with until I finally surrendered to the Calvinist understanding of salvation, which I found more compatible with Scripture. I had been very strongly prejudiced against Calvinism in my upbringing. It was difficult, even painful, to embrace that which many of my beloved teachers hated. But Scripture finally won the day. What a blessed surrender indeed!

Warm regards,

Greg Barkman

Alex, the issue of voice that you raise is really not an issue at all. In Calvinist theology, the sinner is the one who believes. Thus, he is the subject of an active voice verb. I don’t know why you think a passive verb would communicate Calvinist thought - English doesn’t even have a true passive imperative. In the indicative it wouldn’t make sense. The transformation of the active “He believed” into a passive yields “He was believed.” The fuller “He believed in Jesus” would yield “Jesus was believed in by him,” which I don’t see as being any more or less “Calvinistic” than the original.

Voice, whether Greek or English (and I teach both), cannot communicate theological concepts like the nature of faith. It simply relates the subject to the action, as agent, recipient, or a few less common options. I fail to see any relevance of voice to the discussion.

Charlie,

I do not believe my post, whether poorly articulated or you read it with different glasses (so to speak), was correctly understood. My argument has nothing to do with the English translation but with the use of the voice in the Greek. The example of the English translation which was used for the passive voice was only an anecdotal explanation for those who may be unfamiliar with it.

However, to your claim:

Voice, whether Greek or English (and I teach both), cannot communicate theological concepts like the nature of faith. It simply relates the subject to the action, as agent, recipient, or a few less common options. I fail to see any relevance of voice to the discussion.

I encourage you to do a bit more due diligence on the use of the voice in verbs and their theological impact. I believe you are vastly undervaluing their emphasis and influence in the formation of theological concepts and this is a claim that runs contrary to almost every orthodox exegete I have encountered.

But it is not surprising to find a Calvinist, when encountering such a forward use of the active voice in reference to faith, to dismiss it in this manner. And again, this is why I believe exegesis is Calvinism’s enemy and not its friend.

[G. N. Barkman] Good discussion. Actually, Alex, exegesis is the Calvinist’s greatest friend. That’s how I became a Calvinist, and that’s how most Calvinists who were formerly non-Calvinists became such. Also, it turns out that though both Arminianism and Calvinism emply logic, it is actually Arminianism that most resorts to reasoning to fill in the gaps in Scripture, as with the Armionian doctrine of Prevenient Grace, taught nowhere in Scripture, but made necessary by the logic of Arminian assumptions.

G.N.,

Well it happens that it was through a more thorough systematic exegesis I was compelled to renounced my Calvinistic and Reformed theology to which I held for a good number of years. So no doubt the experience works both ways. As to Arminianism and Calvinism holding to certain methods of rationalism, I do not disagree, and again for the record I am neither a Calvinist or Arminian.

[G. N. Barkman] No one on this tread has denied that it is the sinner, himself, who does the believing. (active voice) In fact, it has been clearly stated that it is the sinner, not God, who repents, and the sinner, not God who believes. There must be a disconnect somewhere, since non-Calvinists seem to think Calvinists are saying the God believes for the sinner. Who said that?

I was not addressing the what but the why. That is why do they believe? If it is because of another agent (God) then the passive voice would be required. Possibly you are seeing the nuance of the active and passive voice in connection with these kinds of arguments or simply do not find any cause for appreciation for the detail I am referring to, that is fine. But again, it is not the what (that the sinner believes himself) which would influence the use of the passive or active voice but the why, which is what I was addressing.

[G. N. Barkman] However, Alex has come to an important issue which I do not believe has not been clearly articulated on this thread The Calvinist understanding that regeneration precedes faith is foundational to much of this discussion. I would enjoy seeing Alex’s exegesis of I John 5:1, the text that John Piper said turned him into a convinced Calvinist. If Alex will give as careful attention to the verbs here as in Acts 16:31, he will see that regeneration precedes faith, a doctrine also taught in other passages such as John 3:3,5 and I Corinthians 2:14.

I will work on that. As to Piper’s becoming a convinced Calvinist, well I have low regard for Piper’s exegesis and much of his sloppy (if not careless) theology. I so appreciate his zeal and earnestness but that is far from sufficient for disciplined and rigorous attention to exegetical details and their implication.

I will provide some response later for you on 1 John 5:1 and as for Acts 16:31, I have already dealt with the rather clear direction and implication of that exegesis which uses the active voice for the exercise of faith which is performed by the believer and the passive voice for our being saved, which denotes God doing that work, 1 John 5:1 will not alter the exegesis in Acts. But I will look at 1 John as you request.

[G. N. Barkman] When that is cleared up, everything else becomes plain. Regeneration is the cause of believing, not the result. God gives new life to the elect sinner, enabling him to repent and believe. Faith is the result of the new birth. Thus it is the renewed sinner who exercies faith. He does the believing. God doesn’t believe for him. But he believes because of what God did in him. There is no question about his faith being the gift of God.

Well apparently our Lord Jesus wasn’t informed about this when He taught the parable of the sower where it is the word of God (the gospel) that causes regeneration (brings life) after it is received and not before. Regeneration before faith is not the result of exegesis but of rationalism.

[G. N. Barkman] The Arminian is hard pressed to explain how a sinner, spiritually dead, is able to exercise saving faith.

Greg Barkman

I will leave that to Arminians to explain, I am not one of them. If you do wish to know more specifically about my view of faith as it relates to this I will provide that but it does seem to be getting a bit off topic and I do not want to insult the thread author or the thread’s intent.