Wanted: More Arminians

To the above:

In my second paragraph I stated:

Possibly you are seeing the nuance of the active and passive voice in connection with these kinds of arguments

That should read:

Possibly you are not seeing the nuance of the active and passive voice in connection with these kinds of arguments

Alex,

Why do you keep emphasizing the active voice for “believe” in Acts 16:31, when nobody has denied it, and I have specifically and emphatically affirmed it? Every Calvinist I am acquainted with (personally and through reading) affirms that the sinner himself believes, not God. But what does that prove, in light of the repeatedly stated fact that Calvinists affirm this truth?

You deny that some supply reasoning to fill the gaps in exegesis, but your obsession with disproving what Calvinists do not believe gives me pause. What are you doing, if not attacking a straw man erected by the logic of what you think Calvinism ought to believe?

Let me say it one more time. Sinners exercise faith. The sinner repents, not God. The sinner believes, not God. Am I missing something here? I really am puzzled about your fixation on a point that nobody, in 100 posts on this thread, has denied.

Cordially,

Greg Barkman

Alex, I’ve heard a lot of arguments against Calvinism, but that’s not one of them…and I think for good reason.

Alex, I have read whole PhD dissertations on the use of voice in Greek. I downloaded one less than a week ago. I’m quite competent in Greek - classical, biblical, patristic. But my credentials aren’t really the point.

I’m trying to understand your point. Could you take an actual Greek text, one that you think proves your point, and rewrite it the way you think a Calvinist would need it to read? Then I can compare your composed text with the actual and see what semantic difference the variation creates.

[Aaron Blumer]

[Alex] 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.

First, Charlie’s point is solid. He’s not talking about English except to explain what the meaning of a passive verb would be. You have to translate to explain it. The fact is that in any language the meaning of a passive voice version of “believe” would come out either as something like “to be believed” or “object was believed by subject.”

In any case, as Charlie accurately pointed out, Calvinism teaches that the sinner is the subject of “believe.”

Right but that wasn’t my argument which was the point of my response to his first response. You’re still not on the bus as it relates to my initial argument.

[Aaron Blumer] Second, I think the history of Calvinist and Arminian study is pretty clear that both sides employ a good bit of exegesis and regard it as their friend. In modern times we have a great deal of neglect of exegesis by non-Calvinists and not so much by Calvinists. But there are serious and studious Arminians as well who strive to properly understand the details of the key texts. At at rate, generalizations like “exegesis is on our side” are pretty useless for either side. Might as well just say “our view is better than yours.” Well, it kind of goes without saying that each perspective believes that about it’s own view.

General statements serve a purpose if they are revealed to be valid. One must first, however, understand what a general statement is and is not and when and where it may be used. I believe many people miss this important element in objecting to the use of general statements by others.

I do believe, myself, through my own studies and ample studies by others, that exegesis is not the friend of Calvinism’s proprietary doctrines, hence the general statement is valid. Clearly you do not agree, that is fine. It is impossible here to demonstrate this general principle in a single text of even in a thread without some exhaustive exegetical treatment of which discussion boards are not conducive for such nuanced and voluminous necessities. However, text my text, word by word, study by study, I believe this is borne out in many places. As to Arminians, I agree they have their own set of problems.

[Greg Long] Alex, I’ve heard a lot of arguments against Calvinism, but that’s not one of them…and I think for good reason.

Pick a response (tongue in cheek of course):

1. I give, you win, refutation insurmountable.

2. Are you introducing a new rule that only existing arguments against Calvinism are permitted and no new discoveries permissible? Where is this written?

3. What is someone else has heard this but not you, is it permitted?

4. Which one of my points are you specifically rebutting with this and where is the body of your rebuttal to demonstrate where I am in error grammatically?

Feel free to demonstrate with an argument your rebuttal. I understand that you object, now make your case.

G.N (Charlies as well)

Two things.

1. I believe you still are not understanding my case. I am not accusing the many Calvinists I have in mind of denying that the that the sinner himself believes but that which the active voice vs the passive voice, in relationship to their belief system, implies. What is the implication (I have already discussed this)? Namely that the use of the active voice in the Acts passage conflicts with classic Calvinist teaching. Why do I say this (again already addressed)? Well let me quote Charlie, for my case in point #2.

2. That “the sinner himself believes, not God”, is not what creates the conflict. Again, I am not addressing the what, rather I am addressing the why (the what=the sinner believes, the why=the cause of his belief) as well as the theological disposition and its implications as articulated by Charlie in referencing John Murray (emphasis mine):

[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.

If, in the atonement as specifically articulated here, our Lord provides for the elect “all that the sinner exercises” then the fundamental grammatical construct would be articulated with the passive voice and not the active voice since the believer would be receiving the action of the verb and not performing it.

This is a subtle but critical grammatical point. In the passive voice, while “you” are still the subject of the verb in the sentence, your relationship to the verb’s performance is not the same as in the active voice. You are the subject but you are subordinate to the verb’s action in that, instead of you performing the action of the verb you receive it while remaining the subject in the sentence.

Its implications (the verb voice), in spite of an earlier claim, are often more than appreciable but cardinal for understanding the nature of the action of the verb; who performs it and why. I will give you a prime example of what I am talking about to illustrate the critical role of the voice of a verb.

In Ephesians 5:18b we are commanded, “be ye filled with the Spirit”. The command be filled is the word plērousthe which is a present passive imperative. That means it is a command but uses the passive voice (and present tense which means continuous action but this is not relevant to the argument however, cited for the record). The passive voice means you, the subject, receives the action of the verb, not perform it. And what you are being commanded to do? To be filled with God’s Spirit. But clearly you cannot make yourself on your own be filled with the Spirit, hence no active voice. The filling is done by God’s Spirit but you must yield for the verb to be performed. Kind of synergistic, eh? LOL.

What you must now notice is the why, not the what. The what is that you are commanded to be filled and that is not in question but the why answers how you are filled with the Spirit and here the answer comes from the voice of the verb which is the passive voice. That means that you are to yield to, acquiesce or receive the action of being filled. In other words God’s Spirit does the filling, you are simply yielding to His control (I am making a grammatical point here and I am sure some would like to discuss the detailed mechanics of this particular theological concern and certainly it is one many critically miss and have bad ideas about but it is not germane to the issue at hand).

The point is that the passive voice is used in commands but the action of the verb is performed differently than in the active voice depending on who performs the action of the verb. Here we are commanded as the subject to actually receive the action of the verb, while remaining the subject, since the verb itself is not actually performed by us but by another which we are receiving. It is almost like being a direct object but we are not and that is for a reason, we are still the subject and our participation with the verb is still different in nature than that of a direct object as well as the implications that rest on our retention as the subject.

So again, to Charlie’s statement. If contained in the atonement is the actual exercising of our faith (just as he articulated is the classical Calvinist position) then there not much better a case in Koine Greek to use the passive voice. But it is not used.

Remember above how the grammar of Ephesians lines up with theology? The passive voice command to be filled means God’s Spirit does the filling, even though as the subject we are given this command. It is done this way because we receive the action of the verb but also participate in the action of the verb different than a direct object, hence we remain the subject. Both the grammar and the theology (we cannot fill ourselves with the Spirit of God by doing anything we yield to His control) line up.

If the action of our faith or the exercise of our faith has already been provided in the atonement then the passive voice should be used and there should be a theological and grammatical alignment. But there is not this alignment or compatibility and that is a problem; one of many exegetical problems for Calvinism (one caveat grammar contains a limited number of exceptions so at times one must discover why certain unusual forms are used which may not appear to line up with orthodox views. However, the exceptions and their explanations do not lie in theology or rationalism but in grammar. So if one wishes to explain why exceptions are used they will provide grammatical arguments and citation, not theological or rationalistic ones that, in truth, act as eisegesis.).

But to be frank, IMO, if there ever was a conceptual construct that begged the use of the passive voice it would be this, where the believer is commanded to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”. And again it would be due to just what Charlie has stated, that the very exercising of our faith was already accomplished in the atonement by our Lord (it wasn’t but for the sake of argument I accept it to make the grammatical point) hence, we would not be commanded with the active voice but the passive voice since the action or exercise of faith (believing), which was already accomplished (again as Charlie articulated), is one in which the subject would receive the action of the verb which is the passive voice.

One last moment of clarity, however. Remember I began this case with the following statement:

It is rather interesting (an elementary but pivotal point )

It is not a mountain upon which Calvinism’s errors are slayed. I have made that clear, it is an elementary point. But it is still a critical one and one of the many smaller exegetical indictments against Calvinism. Therefore, I don’t imagine this rationalistic system to be have been dealt a nullifying blow, that isn’t the intent or posture.

Alex, I do see what you’re saying, but you have confused concepts. The passive imperative makes sense in Ephesians b/c filling is something the Holy Spirit does to a person, not something man does. A passive imperative with “believing” would be unintelligible. If you make the sinner the subject of the imperative “believe,” and you then transform that into the passive voice, you wind up with a sentence in which the sinner is the object of belief. “Be you believed in” is an absurd command. So no, the idea that Koine Greek could accomodate the passive voice here if it wished to express Calvinistic belief is misguided.

In fact, your argument is theologically misguided as well. Faith being purchased by Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit in no way detracts from the sinner being the one who actually exercises it.

I’m out of state with my wife’s computer, so my resources are limited, but here’s a good, short summary of what’s wrong with your understanding of the Greek passive imperative: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2005-August/035236.html

Here’s a key portion: “These verbal forms make no sense whatsoever if conceived as orders to the persons involved to suffer a fate inflicted upon them by some external source.”

BTW, Carl Conrad is a classicist who has spearheaded efforts to raise awareness of biblical Greek. Oh, and he’s also written professional publications on Greek voice.

Charlie,

Let me illustrate why your quote of Conrad fails to make your argument. Here is your quote:

Here’s a key portion: “These verbal forms make no sense whatsoever if conceived as orders to the persons involved to suffer a fate inflicted upon them by some external source.”

Never minding that this is simply an informal exchange by Conrad and another person you have contradicted your own position in agreeing with the point in Ephesians while using this quote.

If, as Conrad is suggesting, we conceive the commands to be fates one experiences (he uses suffer but that word is quite biased implying such a context is fundamentally negative and it isn’t) which is inflicted (again his biased negativity) by some external source and to do so makes no sense whatsoever, then the view of Ephesians with which you agreed (the one I made) is also made invalid. By way of Conrad you have invalidated your own view which agreed with mine about Ephesians.

In Ephesians where we are commanded to “be filled” the passive imperative is a command in which we receive the action of the verb and that action (the filling) is indeed performed by an force other than ourselves (the subject of the command) namely God the Holy Spirit.

Conrad can call it an “inflicted fate” if he wishes but his colorful language does not undo the fact that right here, in the Bible, our being filled by the Spirit is done by an an agent other than the subject and it is determined by the passive imperative and corroborated theologically.

I, too, have things taking my attention but later will approach the translational claim you made in your first post asserting that the passive imperative, if it were used, would have to be translated as you state and certainly I disagree with that fully.

Introduction

In opening, I apologize for this post being long; however, I find it necessary to explain a great deal in order to adequately deal with the issues. I could resort to a short post, but then it would only serve the purpose of people talking past one another. Perhaps, we will still talk past one another, but this is my attempt to get to the core issues.

Every person brings in their assumptions about reality when doing exegesis, otherwise exegesis would not be possible. It would not be possible because then there would be no reality with which to make sense of the happenings in Scripture. You could call this assumption something akin to the basics of language needed to understand words, letters, and communication. For further on this point, please see the following link to a post made in the theology forum.

http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-assumptions-data-and-their-relation…

What the above cuts against is the pretended neutrality that many seem to naïvely hold on to. The truth of the matter is that all exegesis involves some sort of assumption, and none is so determinative as one’s assumption about the nature of reality. Philosophically, this is often described in terms of one’s metaphysic.[1] Philosophical categories are often a part of Scripture. When one mentions that God created the heavens and the earth, then he is stating an element of the Christian metaphysic. He is talking about the nature of reality. The problem with philosophy is that it often begins to determine what the text can say, rather than it being determined by what the Scripture says.

Now, why was all of that mentioned? What does all of that have to do with the discussion so far? For starters, this gives one a handhold on which to grasp how people can use the biblical languages, and yet they still differ in interpretation.

Second, (and this will be a major point) the first two paragraphs serve the purpose to begin an introduction of the proper categories of thought in which to understand the following points. The above also serves to begin making key unconscious assumptions much more of a conscious matter.

Thesis

Where is this going? It is at this point that I would like to make a thesis statement, so the following sentence is exceedingly important for one to pick up. Given a certain metaphysic in addition to the active voice/passive voice, then the point is potentially made. However, given a different metaphysic in addition to the active voice, then the point of post 95 & 100 is not made.

What is the metaphysical difference? Stated another way, what are the two differing views concerning the nature of reality? First, one view assumes some measure of autonomy or independence from God as a prerequisite of existence. Second, the other view does not grant autonomy or independence from God as a prerequisite of existence; rather, this view sees all things in dependence upon God for their moment-by-moment existence.

First View

Regarding the first view, the following quotation gives this view a voice.

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.

Please take note that the position being advocated is that man has an autonomy or independence from God’s causality with respect to believing. It is supposed by the statement above that this is an “implication” from the voice used. However, in due course this will be strongly contested.

At this point, it is necessary to address a potential objection. I would certainly raise it if I were on the other side of the fence. I would object to the previous by stating that this is an improper framing of the issue, for it makes assumptions of reality more determinative than the text of Scripture. I would also object that this therefore demonstrates that the very framing of the issue in the above way constitutes a staw man fallacy. In rebuttal to this, the following needs to be restated. This writing is seeking to make conscious what is often left unconscious and unstated. Second, this is not a straw man unless one can demonstrate how the data of Scripture can be understood without a preunderstanding of the nature of reality. The key question then that one has to surmount is this. How then can the data of Scripture be understood without any kind of understanding of the nature of reality? Finally, this writing will continue to address the biblical view of the nature of reality. There are several passages that describe for the reader how reality should be viewed.

At this point another quotation needs to be observed.

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.

Certainly, this is definitely true. Human volition is being addressed; this is the focus. However, the question then becomes “what kind of volition is being addressed?” All too often people assume certain things of volition that are absolutely nowhere found in Scripture. Since this writing is still dealing with the autonomous or independent view of reality from God, in the sense described in the first quotation, then it should be clear that human volition is being understood in an autonomous or independent sense. This perfectly mirrors libertarian freedom. This is the metaphysical assumption being employed here. Perhaps a modified view of libertarian freedom is being employed; however, the essential point is that it is still autonomous and independent from God’s causation. At this point the definition of libertarian freedom is being left assumed as understood by the reader so as to shorten this writing. Perhaps the “label” will be argued against as a misrepresentation; however, this comment will ultimately fail unless the issue of “autonomy/independence” of volition is addressed. The label only serves to identify the obvious categories.

This paragraph will serve to simply summarize what was stated. It is not the intent to misrepresent, but this will hopefully restate the rest of the point argued. The active imperative is used with regard to the verb “believe”, and the future passive indicative is used with “will be saved”. The biblical author understood the differentiation between the two as he wrote the verse. This creates a bifurcation between God’s causality and man’s, since one is active, and the other is in the passive voice. It is this last sentence that I hope has not been a misinterpretation. If this is the point of the argument, then it is again demonstrating a certain understanding of the nature of reality. It is also making the assumption that if this verse is stressing the relationship between two individuals, then this verse must be indicative of how every verse should be understood (at least in terms of the negative, meaning that man’s faith can never be caused).

The summary of this is that whenever a passage of Scripture is encountered which indicates man’s volition, then this volition must be completely severed from God’s causal activity to maintain man’s autonomy or independence of being. A bifurcation will be observed between God’s working and man’s working on account of this view of reality.

Second View

The second view needs to be given a voice. First, it needs to be restated because there has been a lot of material between the first statement of it and now. The other view does not grant autonomy or independence from God as a prerequisite of existence; rather, this view sees all things in dependence upon God for their moment-by-moment existence. Obviously, this entails a much different view of the metaphysics of human volition and providence.

Quite a few passages can be appealed to. First, a well known passage will be appealed to. God used Assyria (Isaiah 10:5) and specifically the Assyrian king (Isaiah 10:12) to accomplish His purposes (Isaiah 10:5-6). The king and his armies conquer, and they become proud (Isaiah 10:13-14), thinking that their success comes from their self-sufficiency (which mirrors the autonomous/independent assumption). God then proceeds to speak of their acts (their volition) in terms of a tool in God’s hands (Isaiah 10:5,15). They are BOTH acting, using their volition; AND they are under the causal hand of God. Further, they are both a tool in the hand of God, and they are responsible. Scripture here is asserting both. There is no bifurcation.

The second passage comes from Hebrews 1:3. The verse states that “he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” The verse describes Him in terms of One who is upholding the created order by the word of His power. Not only does creation owe the beginning of its existence to God; it also owes its continuing existence to its Creator. The obvious point here is that if God were to take away His upholding, sustaining hand, then all of creation would simply not be in existence.

The third passage comes from Paul’s discussion in Athens in Acts 17:15-34. Paul gives to the Athenians a necessary worldview through which to view the resurrection of Jesus. He explains to them the nature of God and his relationship to the created order. In this section one comes upon Acts 17:24-25. In this passage one finds God as understood in terms of being all-sufficient as based upon the fact that He is the Creator, and it is based upon the fact that He gives to all mankind life, and breath, and everything. The point of these various passages (a small sample) is that Scripture nowhere allows for the assumption that man is independent or autonomous. Man is continuously in need of God for his moment-by-moment existence; he is dependent. Hence, a biblical metaphysic or a biblical understanding of the nature of reality endorses a both/and view of man’s action and God’s with respect to man’s ultimate being. It is within that sphere, then, that one understands verses like Acts 16:31.

Visiting Acts 16:31

Acts 16:31 is then understood as indicating that man is active in his believing, just like the grammar of the passage states. One can also state with Ephesians 2:8 that man is also passive in his believing, since there is no necessary bifurcation created by man’s willing and God’s sustaining; ann in the case of Ephesians 2:8, God’s gifting of an action takes place. Certainly, it is not as though God is believing for the person in a pantheistic sense; however, neither should man’s believing be assumed as coming completely from himself as if he were autonomous and independent from God. The fact that man is not the ultimate source of his own faith no more demeans his volition than that Adam’s existence was demeaned by God’s creation of him. The value or meaning of existence is not determined by one’s independence/autonomy from God; rather, the opposite is true. The value or meaning of existence is determined by one’s dependence upon God, since God is the ultimate focal point of meaning.

“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.” This is false. One can speak of an agent’s action in both active and passive terms at different times and in different ways. The quoted statement is endorsing a false bifurcation between God’s activity and man’s. Now certainly the passage does speak to a certain aspect of God’s activity and man’s, but it does not address the whole, nor does it allow the autonomous/independent assumption. Further, the term “salvation” is used in many different senses with respect to believers and unbelievers (ultimate eschatological salvation, a present salvation, a future salvation, a past salvation, etc.). The consistency with which people make this false assumption (of a uniform understanding of “salvation”) forces me to make this comment, whether relevant to this discussion or not. The point of the paragraph then is to point out that “yes” man is active in his faith; however, the passage’s use of “will be saved” does not eliminate God’s activity with regard to man’s faith. It only means that a certain aspect of the total process of a multifaceted “salvation” is being emphasized.

Conclusion

Certainly, it is a necessary implication that there be a bifurcation given an independent/autonomous metaphysic; however, given a both/and metaphysic it is no longer an implication, nor is it even a justifiable potential inference (Eph 2:8). On account of the previous reasons, this author is unconvinced by the argument made.

I sincerely hope that this has been helpful; I am not planning on getting involved in an extensive back and forth discussion, but if the situation requires it and the time and energy is available, then I will continue. But it is not my plan to continue past this posting.

[1] Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Press, 1996), 181-183. For a more thorough description of the term, these pages are a good source.

Alex,

Your example works well in Ephesians 5, but not in the exercise of faith. To be filled with the Spirit is an activity of the Spirit, not man. To believe is an exercise of man, not the Spirit. For you to say that the passive should be used if the position of Calvinism were true is not a valid statement. The only way to properly represent the Calvinist position (rightly understood) is to use the active voice. If you think the passive is appropriate, you do not understand the Calvinist position. In other words, your theological understanding does not appear to be cogent, not to mention the grammatical impossibility.

To put it another way, the reason the passive is used in Ephesians 5:18 is because the Spirit does the filling, not man. The reason the active is used in Acts 16:31 is because man does the believing, not the Spirit. The active voice in Acts 16:31 accurately represents the Calvinist view. It may not represent what you believe to be the Calvinist position, but that reveals a misunderstanding on your part. I’m afraid you are building an argument against Calvinism on faulty logic, but thanks for the discussion. It has been interesting.

Cordially,

Greg Barkman

Alex, I’m not sure that I ever agreed with your interpretation of Eph. 5. If I did so, it was hasty of me. The undoing of your assertion lies in the very verse you quoted.

Eph 5:18 - And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,

καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι,

You have asserted that the passive imperative instructs the recipient to allow someone to perform an action upon them. In some cases, that may be plausible, but it is NOT the meaning encoded by the passive voice. Both of the Greek verbs in this sentence are passive imperatives. The first one, translated “do not get drunk” (“get” being the closest English can come to a passive imperative), obviously does not mean, “Do not allow someone else to pour alcohol into your gullet as you yield yourself.” It means, rather, “Do not drink to the point of entering a drunken state.”

This is where Conrad’s point becomes useful. I know I quoted an informal exchange, but it is in line with his published work on the middle/passive voice. This grammatical construction occurs when the fulfillment of the command will accomplish a change in state. For example, in the Gospels, see Jesus’ “Be healed” (which may not really be a command at all, but more of a performative). Also, it’s common in Greek to say “Be silenced” instead of “be silent.” (See Luke 4:35.) Again, the meaning of that is not, “Passively allow someone to muzzle you,” but “Shut up!” The middle/passive is used to indicate the change in state. (This is, in fact, strong evidence in favor of Conrad’s (and other’s) theory that Greek was originally an active/middle language, and that the passive voice derived from the middle.)

So, “Be filled with the Spirit” may indicate a passivity on the part of the so commanded, but it may not. The voice alone does not encode that meaning. Linguistically it means, “Enter a state in which you are filled with the Spirit.” That could mean that the Spirit fills a person as he yields, or it could mean something else. What we cannot do, and what you have done, is read your theological interpretation of a command back into the grammatical category of voice. The meaning encoded by the passive voice has to be equally true of the first verb in the sentence as the second.

Charlie,

Thanks for the Greek lesson. My two and a half years of Greek have gradually drifted away over the years. I didn’t have a strong grasp then, and find myself with even less now. I depend heavily upon others to explain the nuances and implications of the original language. I know it’s important, so I try to inform myself, and I depend upon the competence of others. I learned a long time ago that a little Greek can be dangerous! I’ve heard too many preachers tossing Greek around like it was their second language, only to draw completely erroneous conclusions. I appreciate your expertise on this thread. Again, thanks!

Cordially,

Greg Barkman

[Aaron Blumer] So there is, to use, GNB’s term, an “additional something” that accounts for one heeding and another not heeding. So what is it?

I feel like an additional possibility is just slightly out of reach of my mind but getting closer.

Part of the problem is the insistence on identifying an “additional something” that accounts for the believing, which then leads to the conclusion that the “additional something” creates a legitimate reason for man’s boasting. Arminiansim and Calvinism both include prevenient grace, regardless of its name. The important difference is that in Calvinism prevenient grace is only given to the elect and is irresistible.

There is no “additional something.”

As for my earlier question, I’ll rephrase:

Why is it possible for a believer to quench the Spirit?

[Aaron Blumer] Of course, this thread really didn’t start out as any effort to argue one way or the other for a Calv. or Armin. perspective. But I did pretty much expect it would go there eventually. It’s a mercy that it took a while!

Just as a review: the main idea in the OP was that Arminianism is much better than incoherent soteriological soup, and that many, many (most?) anti-Calvinists (not same as “non calvinists”) have no coherent soteriology at all… even calling it “soup” would be generous.

I believe the thread is still about that, but the other Calvinists are working to prove you wrong.

Working on a few responses.

Dan,

Until believers are entirely sanctified (in heaven), they still posses Adam’s fallen nature with it’s bent toward sin. The question is not why do believer’s quench the spirit. The question is why they don’t do so at all times. The answer, of course, is the new life given them by the Holy Spirit, which enables them to please God, and grants them the desire to do so. That desire will be perfect and unchallenged in heaven. Until then, it will be punctuated by sinful desires.

The real question is why does any sinner ever please God? The answer is that God quickens dead sinners to life, and gives them such desires. Otherwise, they never would.

The problem withe Arminian prevenient grace is that it is not irresistible. If it were, there would be no problem explaining why sinners believe. However it would raise another problem, namely if prevenient grace is given to all, and is irresistible, all would be saved. Calvinist prevenient grace (preceding grace) quickens the elect sinner, enabling him to believe. Arminian prevenient grace does not quicken the sinner to life. It reverses enough of the effects of Adam’s fall to enable him to believe, if he chooses to, but also leaves him able to refuse. Since new life is not bestowed, we are left with the problem of why some believe and others do not. What causes sinner A to believe, and sinner B to refuse, when both have been given the same grace? That is the “something.” It is “something” that is Not the same in Calvinist theology. In Calvinism, the “something” is Holy Spirit wrought new life that enables men to believe. In Arminian theology, new life does not come until after the sinner believes. You have omitted a third essential difference, the timing of faith. Arminianism has the unregenerate sinner believing before he is regenerated. Calvinism teaches that prevenient grace regenerates, and is the source of repentance, and faith.

So back to the question, what causes sinner A to believe? It has to be something within himself. If not, then sinner B would believe as well, since both have the same prevenient grace.

Cordially,

Greg Barkman

[ Aaron Blumer] So there is, to use, GNB’s term, an “additional something” that accounts for one heeding and another not heeding. So what is it?

I feel like an additional possibility is just slightly out of reach of my mind but getting closer.

[ Aaron Blumer]

… and the remaining problem—of all the non Calvinist views I’m aware of—is that we don’t have an explanation for what finally brings one sinner to repent vs. another.

• Is it luck?
• Is it something in the sinner that is completely independent of any cause? (We are contingent creatures… how can anything we do be ultimately uncaused?)
• Is it “everything” coming together in some way to get us to say “yes”?
• Is it some bit if wisdom in the sinner?
• Or is it, as Calvinists say (and—I’m pretty sure—Augustine before them), God working all things according to the counsel of His will?

For awhile it looked like this central question that many posts are focusing on could have some interesting possibilities for discussion. Now it seems to have gotten shut back down to a dichotomy of only two either/or possibilities, again:

Either, A) God does everything;

or, B) the sinner “produces” something himself and thereby takes some kind of boast-worthy credit for his own salvation.

[G. N. Barkman] So back to the question, what causes sinner A to believe? It has to be something within himself. If not, then sinner B would believe as well, since both have the same prevenient grace.

I am wondering what part some other “things” may play in all this, particularly the role of Christians/saints:

Why, for example, do we pray for the lost? With stories of grandmothers praying for the salvation of their grandchildren for years and years, to finally see their subsequent salvation? We credit them with perseverance and a heart of prayer and intercession; and we claim that prayer affects God somehow. What part does prayer actually play, what part can it play (other than changing the one praying), when God has pre-ordained the elect? …Without getting into existential questions of how the elect were chosen because God fore-knew who was going to pray for whom and how fervently they were going to pray (and that begs the related question, what makes one saint’s prayer different from another saint’s prayer since all those ever prayed for do not necessarily become Christians).

What, for example, is the purpose of apologetics or, in fact, “learning” how to make an gospel presentation at all? Surely, quoting John 3:16 or similar verses, or the passing on of a simple tract, is more than sufficient for the Holy Spirit to use in every case. If a Christian engaging in evangelism is wooly on some of the details, or if he doesn’t himself have a fully developed soteriology or eschatology, or if he uses a particularly “childlike” presentation with simple terms, is the Holy Spirit less likely to use this “catalyst” (if you will), and therefore the hearer is less likely to be converted? Is this because God in His foreknowledge knew who would receive a “proper” gospel presentation in which the correct versions of scripture were used and all the i’s were dotted and all the t’s crossed?

It sounds a bit like the conservative Calvinist position wants to have its cake and eat it too.

And the “act of believing”? Whether it is a gift or not, is this a one-time, completely understood, fully-informed and fully-formed instantaneous event? It seems that the Calvinists want to imply that it is. Certainly, I see much more in the United States a tendency to focus on a day and hour of conversion, with a testimony to the words used and the thought processes and the feelings of conviction at the moment of conversion. No-where else, among Calvinist or non-Calvinist groups have I seen such a focus on the moment of conversion itself.

I can certainly understand the need to discuss timing and the process of salvation — and whether the sinner was regenerate or unregenerate at the moment of “believing”. But it seems to me, that the view or assumptions of what constitutes a man’s decision for Christ, the believing, affects the answer that a conservative Calvinist wants to give to the question about what the “something” is that man must not be allowed to add. If one has to point to a moment in time and say, that is the moment I “received” Christ because that is when I consciously understood the various aspects of the Gospel (like Atonement and Propitiation) and the implications of it for my life, then it certainly seems like the Holy Spirit must provide all the resources for that ability to believe. Who would know otherwise? We have all kinds of people giving all kinds of Gospel presentations, rightly or wrongly, intentionally or accidentally, faithfully or unfaithfully, child-like or doctrinal, apologetically or otherwise. The Holy Spirit must provide that ability to believe, and obviously, to the elect alone. If believing, or the “something” apparently required of the Arminian, is akin to complete understanding. Perhaps some of these semantic tangles should indeed be laid at the door of Calvinists who seem to be willing to manipulate various definitions (as a previous poster suggested) depending on what they are arguing — in this instance “believe”.

But I wonder if a human response to God, of some kind, one that says in effect, “I don’t understand, Lord, but I want what you seem to want to give me”, may be teased out from the above kind of definitive and complete understanding of one’s position before an Almighty God that seems to accompany the “saving decision” that Americans like to put in their testimonies.

Is “believing” truly dependent upon either a) the Lord doing everything and giving no part in the ministry of reconciliation to his saints through praying for years, say; or b), “something produced” within the believing man that he himself could take credit for, but which must be equally present in all other human beings, lest it be “unfair”. Could there not be these elusive other “things” that Aaron is seeking? Could not prayer of the saints, and witnessing, and opportunity and evangelism, and sensitive conscience, and natural revelation, and life-changing event such as a car-wreck, ALL have a Spirit-orchestrated impact? One begins to wonder if engaging in prayer and evangelism are solely for our own benefit. It does seem that a bit of heart toward evangelism is lacking in some ultra-Calvinists; is this because a fore-gone conclusion is assumed?

There can be no doubt that the Holy Spirit convicts prompts our spirits and causes the seed to germinate. But I am wondering if the Lord allows the state of the ground, the soil, to be influenced by the person dwelling there and by his neighbours as well? Are all humans equally stony by nature? Is this what unregenerate or fallen means — that all men are all equally incapable of making any response to their creator? If so, then why do we speak of the benefits of Christian families or heritage; why might we speak of an “unreachable” state in which certain unrepentant persons habitually engaged in certain kinds of sins (such as homosexuality for instance) may find themselves, and by this utter rejection of the Lord be “given over”? No-one is “unredeemable” by the Lord. I think this may be a “problem” that Calvinism faces. I think this is why it was mentioned (Dan/Don?) as it being a question of men by default universally rejecting Christ who has by His death made it possible that no-one has to reject Him; rather than it being a question or problem of what that something is that men must produce in order to be able to believe — a “something” which, apparently, must be equally applicable and efficacious for all men in the interest of fairness as GNB seems at pains to repeatedly point out.

Perhaps another way of looking at it is that “something” must indeeds be produced, but by the sinner’s regenerate grandmother working in concert with the Holy Spirit, rather than by the man himself. Moreover, that “something” or “somethings” could be prayer, the fruits of the spirit, witnessing, opportunity, love, etc. — all the things commanded of us toward others because God somehow involves us in His ministry of reconciliation. How awesome is that?

What the man is responsible for is his believing response in which he “surrenders” his “autonomy” given the opportunity (which is by no means assumed to be equal for all men). Why must GNB seem to insist that this “something” that Arminianism apparently requires must be equal and fair to all persons; when the Calvinist doctrine of Election itself is often seen as “unfair”? It seems to me that any balance, were it possible, would be formed of the best of elements of both (in this instance God’s Sovereignty). [Surely balance can be a good thing without necessarily being the same as a luke-warm camp which believes little and has nothing to put forward but an ill-considered mess.]

But what a mystery which we can’t delineate in a seminary text book, eh? How do we precisely articulate such a doctrine? For if “other things” are admitted of, we must know their precise proportions and relationships and composition so we that can construct a formula for it; if only in order to avoid a charge of having a less than satisfactorily articulated soteriology or some such? One begins to wonder if the point of everything is to have clear definitions for the sake of it.

RRobinson,

I’m having trouble understanding exactly what you mean, but I can address one issue. I think you misunderstand the issue of fairness.

The Calvinists prefers to think in terms of “justice” rather than “fairness.” What is “fair” is more subjective than what is just. Justice demands that all men go to Hell. If God were only just, none would be saved. Thankfully, God is also merciful, and in His mercy has dispensed grace to save an innumerable company of sinners from their deserved condemnation.

God’s mercy is sovereign mercy, and is not dispensed to all alike. It is dispensed to the elect alone.

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Romans 9:15, quoting Exodus 33:19) God makes no claim to “fairness” as men may view the matter. That is the point of the parable in Matthew 20:1-16, where the laborers grumbled because the Master was more generous to some workers than to others. It concludes with, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong…Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?”

Sinners in Hell have no one to blame but themselves. They have received what was agreed, and are suffering the just wages of their sin. Saints in heaven owe everything to sovereign mercy. They know what justice demands. They know where they deserve to be. They know themselves to be the objects of great grace, sovereign grace. They have no cause to boast, but only to give God eternal glory for their undeserved salvation.

It is the Arminian who labors to make grace “fair” by making it universal rather than particular. The Calvinist has no such delusions.

Warm regards,

Greg Barkman

[G. N. Barkman] Until believers are entirely sanctified (in heaven), they still posses Adam’s fallen nature with it’s bent toward sin.

Thanks. That’s exactly the answer I was looking for. Adam’s nature remains. The believer retains the ability to disobey God. The believer has a choice whether to be filled with the Spirit, or to quench the Spirit.

So, according to Calvinism, grace is irresistible, but only a the point of regeneration resulting in belief. After that it becomes resistible again. At least the Arminian is consistent here.

[G. N. Barkman] The question is not why do believer’s quench the spirit.

Actually, that IS the question I asked. The “why does a believer NOT quench the spirit” really has the same answer in both Calvinism and Arminianism.

[G. N. Barkman] The question is why they don’t do so at all times. The answer, of course, is the new life given them by the Holy Spirit, which enables them to please God, and grants them the desire to do so. That desire will be perfect and unchallenged in heaven. Until then, it will be punctuated by sinful desires.

The real question is why does any sinner ever please God? The answer is that God quickens dead sinners to life, and gives them such desires. Otherwise, they never would.

Agreed.

[G. N. Barkman] The problem withe Arminian prevenient grace is that it is not irresistible. If it were, there would be no problem explaining why sinners believe. However it would raise another problem, namely if prevenient grace is given to all, and is irresistible, all would be saved. Calvinist prevenient grace (preceding grace) quickens the elect sinner, enabling him to believe. Arminian prevenient grace does not quicken the sinner to life. It reverses enough of the effects of Adam’s fall to enable him to believe, if he chooses to, but also leaves him able to refuse. Since new life is not bestowed, we are left with the problem of why some believe and others do not. What causes sinner A to believe, and sinner B to refuse, when both have been given the same grace? That is the “something.” It is “something” that is Not the same in Calvinist theology. In Calvinism, the “something” is Holy Spirit wrought new life that enables men to believe. In Arminian theology, new life does not come until after the sinner believes. You have omitted a third essential difference, the timing of faith. Arminianism has the unregenerate sinner believing before he is regenerated. Calvinism teaches that prevenient grace regenerates, and is the source of repentance, and faith.

So back to the question, what causes sinner A to believe? It has to be something within himself. If not, then sinner B would believe as well, since both have the same prevenient grace.

Cordially,

Greg Barkman

Prevenient grace not being irresistible is only a problem if you assume Calvinism is correct. There is no problem whatsoever for Arminianism explaining why someone believes. The explanation is essentially the same in both Calvinism and Arminianism. It is a work of the Holy Spirit that precedes faith. Your argument here assumes that regeneration must precede faith rather than demonstrating that it must be so.

I’m merely suggesting the possibility that the same Adamic nature that makes it possible for a believer to reject the Holy Spirit’s leading might also make it possible for an unbeliever to reject the Holy Spirit’s leading.

Is the issue really that Calvinism can not abide man having a choice?

[Aaron Blumer]

[dan] Part of the problem is the insistence on identifying an “additional something” that accounts for the believing, which then leads to the conclusion that the “additional something” creates a legitimate reason for man’s boasting. Arminiansim and Calvinism both include prevenient grace, regardless of its name. The important difference is that in Calvinism prevenient grace is only given to the elect and is irresistible.

There is no “additional something.”

There has to be an additional something. Dan, it sounds like you’re taking the view that the difference between those who believe and those who do not is uncaused. It just happens? But nothing in the universe—apart from God Himself—works that way. Only God is non-contingent.

No, I’m not.

It seems to me that what is being implied by the caused/uncaused line of reasoning is that there are two choices:

1. God predetermined everything that happens everywhere in every moment for all time (caused).
2. Things (at least some things) randomly happen with no connection to anything that has ever happened before (uncaused).
   This seems a false dichotomy since there could be many alternatives, but perhaps I don’t fully understand what “caused” and “uncaused” mean.
   
   It seems to me that a foundational concept is Calvinism is that unless “God predetermined everything that happens everywhere in every moment for all time” then He can not be sovereign. Is this what the caused/uncaused idea is getting at?

[Bob T.] 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. [emphasis mine]

Amen. I could not agree more.

[Aaron Blumer]

I’m a bit surprised to see this. Romans is quite clear that everyone is either justified or not. There must be a moment when one, in Jesus’ words, passes from death to life (John 5.24).

Don’t be too concerned — I’m not really saying anything otherwise. Clearly, everyone is either justified or not, and for those who are, there would be an actual moment. What I am saying is that, that actual moment of conversion is not necessarily at twenty-past-eleven on the Sunday morning when a person goes forward in a public display of faith and prays after the pastor a formulaic prayer containing certain doctrinally acceptable phrases. The conversion may have occurred the previous week when his spirit was touched by the Holy Spirit in concert with a particular conversation, event or as a result of a particular prayer from the other side of the world. Who knows? I said it seems to be a peculiarly American tendency to emphasise a particular moment as something to look back at, embuing it with a certain color (such as the emotions of the nearest public meeting) and remembering certain phrasing.

That being the case, I was merely raising the question of what “belief” or the “ability to believe” may actually constitute as it has been a focus of many of the posts. Does the Holy Spirit convert one in a moment according to one’s heart response to the person and work of Jesus, whether we can yet articulate the ins and outs satisfactorily; i believe so. Or, is belief and thus conversion deemed to have taken place when complete understanding can be articulated in a testimonial sense? And then it happens again, when the believer seeks assurance at the next revival meeting?

It may seem to be a rabbit trail, but I only ask because a lot seems to be hanging on what response an unregenerate man may or may not be able to make “on his own”. But since we don’t know how the Holy Spirit works in a given heart at a given time, nor what prayer and circumstances are uniquely used, then I lean with Dan toward a prevenient grace that allows all men to respond initially, and more grace to those who do in fact respond. And of course additional grace during our process of sanctification that helps us to not quench the Spirit, and leads to our greater understanding day by day of the mystery and wonder of our Salvation.

BTW, thanks Dan for the last two comments: a couple of your thoughts are exactly what I was tying to get at in my two long posts.

GNB, re: Fairness vs Justice:

I am fully with you on God’s Sovereignty and justice that says HE need not save ANYONE; who are we to say otherwise? I wanted to observe that since this view that is precious to the Calvinist is NOT about “fairness”, why act as though the Arminian position must[/I] provide some measure of Fairness, just because Prevenient Grace is available to all men and yet not all men accept and receive Christ? Your constant reference to “something” that makes one man different from another as something special “about that man” implies, to me, that you think there cannot or should not be anything that can constitute a difference whereby one is ultimately saved and another is not.

As Dan has said, why should there be “anything”. I ask why the prayers of others, numerous conversations and interactions with faithful witnesses, heritage and early training in “spiritual” sensitivity, events, etc, etc. Could not be used of the Holy Spirit and account for the fact that one man believes and another does not? If not, what place do these things thus have (prayer for and witnessing to the lost)? That was a question in among my too long posts.

The discussion regarding the voice of the Greek verbs is interesting but perhaps not the heart of the argument regarding faith.

Likewise it may not be relevant whether faith is “an additional something.”

How does the New Testament regard faith overall? What is that words theological meaning as gained from its meaning and use?

May I again post the statement by J. Gresham Machen.

. 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).

Perhaps we will admit that Machen was possibly a Greek scholar and also an adequate Reformed theologian of the Princeton school.

Faith is not a work or attribute of the soul and gives nothing to the believer that may be seen as merit in any way. If I have a broken leg and lean upon a crutch for support am I to be congratulated, or given merit for “leaning?” The support is based on the ability of the crutch. I doubt if anyone would come forward and say; “what a wonderful thing you do in leaning on that crutch.” One might say; “it’s too bad you have a broken leg that disables you but it is good that you have such a sturdy crutch to give you support and mobility.”

In arguing theology we often construct concepts and scenarios that are beyond common sense. Based on Hebrews 11 and other NT passages, Faith is seen as coming from man and toward God. It is possible because of the Grace of God which may be the persuasive work of the Spirit upon the human soul, using the word of God, that arouses the soul to lean upon God and thus bring from God the benefits of Christ which some of which are Justification, Redemption, Forgiveness, Regeneration, Adoption, Sanctification, and Glorification. They are bestowed by our position “in Christ.” None can be bestowed without such union and the eternal life it brings. Regeneration is seen as connected with the indwelling of the Spirit and the impartation of divine nature to the human soul. All are “in Christ.”

There is a clear work of the Spirit upon the soul of all men (John 16:5-11) but that is especially there when the word of God is spoken. But is not a revealed as pre salvation regeneration. It is also resistible since we are still in the image and likeness of God though marred and fallen. We are admonished to believe as the first act which precedes conversion of the soul. Unlike the Angelic creatures, we are potentially redeemable.

Could it be that since it is an eternal God that elects that His election does not, and cannot, precede His foreknowledge. All has existed without beginning. It is therefore, from all eternity, not unconditional just as foreknowledge is not ever alone without election. Just as the Godhead is mystery with glimpses revealed by revelation, so election and salvation is mystery, only partly seen by the fleeting glimpses in God’s revelation. The construction of theology made in European Calvinism and Arminianism are interesting but inconclusive with conjecture beyond simple Biblical truth given.

We need more who are neither Calvinist or Arminian. We should be aware of their history but very discerning in acceptance of their influence.

Aaron, I agree with you here, that all resistance is temporary for the Christian. Likewise, all resistance is ultimate for the unbeliever. Likewise, the “irrestible” part of grace for the believer is usually generously mixed with resistance. Irrestible Grace does not mean never resisted. It means not ultimately resisted. Resistance is the normal response of fallen men. That resistance is effectually and gradually overcome by the irresistible power of God’s Spirit until the elect sinner is brought to surrender and faith.

It is a mistake to equate resistance and irresistance as equal. Man is not born neutral, he is born fallen. Therefore, he always resists God’s grace. The effectual call of God’s Spirit overcomes man’s natural resistance for the elect. The lack of the effectual call for the non-elect leaves them continuing to resist. The reason a sinner resists God’s spirit? Because he is a sinner. Likewise, because he is a depraved sinner, he cannot not resist. Resistance is his only “choice” because it is the normal response of his fallen nature.

So Dan, yes, you are exactly right. The fallen Adamic nature not only enables, but assures that the sinner will resist, reject, and refuse to believe. So again, the question is not why does the sinner resist? The question is why he surrenders? That cannot be explained by anything within a fallen son of Adam. As has been said several times on this thread, that can only be explained by grace, prevenient grace, that is grace that precedes faith and enables and causes faith. But don’t you see the problem? The Calvinist prevenient grace is effectual grace. It accomplishes it’s goal. It always succeeds. It is irresistible. Once that enabling grace is bestowed, it becomes the cause of faith within the one upon whom it is bestowed. Arminian prevenient grace is not effectual. It helps the sinner, but does not guarantee anything within the sinner. It may or may not result in faith. If the sinner rejects it, it accomplishes nothing. If the sinner chooses to yield to it, it accomplishes something.

So, we are right back to where we started. What is it within some sinners that cause them to yield to this Arminian prevenient grace? It could have been just as easily resisted as received. By itself, this grace does not bring the sinnner to faith in Christ. Something else must be contributed by the sinner before this grace becomes effective. What is that, and where did it come from? If from God, then God, evidently, particularized additional grace for those who believe, something He did not grant to those who do not believe. If so, you have the Calvinist doctrine of effectual grace to those whom God chooses to save. (the elect) If this did not come from God, it must be something the sinner adds from within himself. Without that component, God’s grace is not effectual. With the sinner’s contribution, faith is exercised and salvation is secured. So the final component to accomplish salvation comes from man, not God, and is not owing to God’s grace. That’s the issue. That’s the problem.

Cordially,

Greg Barkman

[Aaron Blumer] What ultimate cause can there be besides God?

I think last week some time, if not earlier, I made the point that this is so. Whether you’re Calvinist, Arminian, or (like me) neither, God is the ultimate cause of everything. This is even true if you believe that God created the universe, wound it up like a clock, and then left. Still, God would have been the ultimate cause of everything. I just don’t see the point in that line of discussion.

[Aaron Blumer] But I would argue that, ultimately, the Spirit is irresistible to the believer as well. “Ultimately” is an important word in this whole conversation.

What I mean by that is that the believer’s experience is one of gradual conforming to the image of Christ. He slowly experiences a oneness of his will with that of God and a oneness of his character with that of Christ. He is initially credited with righteousness, then slowly becomes actually righteous. As that happens, he is less and less able—by nature—to resist the Spirit. He has less and less interest in doing that. In the end, his will is one with the Spirit’s will.

So all resistance is temporary for the Christian.

I agree resistance is temporary, but not in the way you describe. Here’s one reason:

[] 1Co 5:3-5

(3) For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

(4) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

(5) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

I think perhaps this (faith is a work discussion) is becoming a “yes it is”, “no it’s not” circle.

[G. N. Barkman] So, we are right back to where we started. What is it within some sinners that cause them to yield to this Arminian prevenient grace? It could have been just as easily resisted as received. By itself, this grace does not bring the sinnner to faith in Christ. Something else must be contributed by the sinner before this grace becomes effective. What is that, and where did it come from? If from God, then God, evidently, particularized additional grace for those who believe, something He did not grant to those who do not believe. If so, you have the Calvinist doctrine of effectual grace to those whom God chooses to save. (the elect) If this did not come from God, it must be something the sinner adds from within himself. Without that component, God’s grace is not effectual. With the sinner’s contribution, faith is exercised and salvation is secured. So the final component to accomplish salvation comes from man, not God, and is not owing to God’s grace. That’s the issue. That’s the problem.

Yes, here we are again. Thank you for your patient repetition (I think we did “get it”).

Now I have another observation/question: what is the Grace you are talking about?

It seems it is used in various posts in at least a couple of different ways.

1) Prevenient Grace, as it has been discussed, seems to be about the “ability to believe”.

2) “Additional Grace” on the one hand and perhaps Irresistible Grace on the other seem both to pertain to the “working” of God in our lives such that His Holy Spirit grants wisdom and understanding, strength to overcome the naturally tendency to resist or quench Him, circumstances and moments of clarity in which our hearts are pricked or drawn to respond to Him, etc.

3) the Atonement that secures our Salvation (I guess “Effectual” Grace to the Calvinist?)

It is the second that can be said have some kind of different measure in different person’s lives. We can talk about “more” or “less” of this kind of Grace because God can grant more or less to us, we can ask for more, we can intercede on behalf of others for them to be granted more, etc. God dispenses this out of His abundant treasures.

However, I don’t think we can talk about the third kind in terms of amounts. Either Christ paid the price for all sin and death for all time, or He did not. His death secured our Salvation. No, GNB, I don’t think that the exercise of our faith secured salvation. I think the exercise of our faith secured justification (Aaron and I had a little exchange on this).

The Calvinist has to consider that He paid for only the sins of the Elect. I guess the argument goes something like this: if Christ did die for all, then it would have been “Effectual” for all, for how could any work of God be anything less than “complete” or “perfect”? So, since we know that some men go to hell, His atonement must not have been Effectual for All, therefore He died only for the Elect. I guess my understanding would be that justification is secured by those who believe, [I] out of[/I] the matchless, infinite, complete, ultimate, price that Christ paid. Either Christ paid an infinite price or He did not — we don’t have to worry about some of it going to waste, or being “ineffectual”.

So, really, where we are “right back to” seems to be “whosoever believeth” and whom exactly did Christ die for.

Caleb,

Thank you for the lengthy post. I appreciate you interest in being thorough.

As to causality, this does depends on how one defines and applies causality but in my case I do not have a unique view of it but I do have a distinct view of its application, however I do not believe it interferes with understanding or relating to its general use.

Now, Calvinism, with respect to the function of human volition and the exercise of faith, does not view causality as secondary, rather as primary. As Charlie stated in effect we believe because it was accomplished in the atonement (of course I disagree). It is primary as the cause for our believing (among other things that Calvinism asserts as to the primary cause of our believing but I am only treating Charlies’ statement which represents classical Calvinism as he states). Therefore because of this assertion and how the passive voice is used in the great it is my observation that it is expected to be found in our the command to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, in Acts. If it were secondary then I more expect the active voice which is what is used.

As to human volition and divine causality, I do not hold to a bifurcation. There is a relationship between human sovereignty and divine sovereignty. It simply is, in my view, not as Calvinism asserts. And this does include various forms of causality but with differing values. So the term bifurcation would not be apt. However, the term libertarian might be somewhat okay for a loose term but certainly one used very casually and not formally since it cannot represent all elements of human sovereignty (volition) and divine sovereignty and their relationship.

You made the following statement in quoting me:

“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.” This is false. One can speak of an agent’s action in both active and passive terms at different times and in different ways.

No one is arguing that. Of course an agent can be spoken of in active and passive voices but when, as Charlie stated, our believing is done in the form of acquiescing to what has already been done by another agent (remember he stated that even the exercise of our faith was secured in the atonement) the grammatical construct calls for our exercising it in the passive voice seeing that we are yield to that which is done by another and we are receiving the action of the verb. Now, I understand some may disagree with this analysis and application of what I believe the implications are of what Charlie stated but I believe they are ignoring the implication combined with the grammatical norms.

[Charlie] Alex, I’m not sure that I ever agreed with your interpretation of Eph. 5. If I did so, it was hasty of me. The undoing of your assertion lies in the very verse you quoted.

Eph 5:18 - And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,

καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι,

You have asserted that the passive imperative instructs the recipient to allow someone to perform an action upon them. In some cases, that may be plausible, but it is NOT the meaning encoded by the passive voice. Both of the Greek verbs in this sentence are passive imperatives. The first one, translated “do not get drunk” (“get” being the closest English can come to a passive imperative), obviously does not mean, “Do not allow someone else to pour alcohol into your gullet as you yield yourself.” It means, rather, “Do not drink to the point of entering a drunken state.”

This is where Conrad’s point becomes useful. I know I quoted an informal exchange, but it is in line with his published work on the middle/passive voice. This grammatical construction occurs when the fulfillment of the command will accomplish a change in state. For example, in the Gospels, see Jesus’ “Be healed” (which may not really be a command at all, but more of a performative). Also, it’s common in Greek to say “Be silenced” instead of “be silent.” (See Luke 4:35.) Again, the meaning of that is not, “Passively allow someone to muzzle you,” but “Shut up!” The middle/passive is used to indicate the change in state. (This is, in fact, strong evidence in favor of Conrad’s (and other’s) theory that Greek was originally an active/middle language, and that the passive voice derived from the middle.)

Charlie

1. You have made a statement that critically misunderstands my view of the general rule of the passive. You stated that my general position is “the passive imperative instructs the recipient to allow someone to perform an action upon them”.

Wrong.

You only yield to someone if someone is being commanded to be yielded to. Therefore your response with regard to Eph 5:18a is built on an assumption that I always have a someone in view. I do have an external force in view but the agent is not always a someone.

In Ephesians 5:18b it is a someone, namely God the Holy Spirit. However, in Eph 5:18a it is not a someone it is a something, and that something specifically is wine. So your rebuttal is in response to an argument I did not and am not making. If, somewhere, I stated that a someone is always in view (giving the impression that a person is always in view to which the subject is yielding), that certainly is a statement I do not remember making. If it appears I have implied this then show me the implied statement and I will correct it. However, I do believe you jumped the gun on that one with an assumption on your part.

As to the translation, yours is certainly acceptable, I would prefer it another way so as to emphasize all the elements of the verb with as much nuance as possible. I would translate it most technically without concern for reading value, “Always do not allow yourself to be made drunk by wine”.

2. On the issue of “be silenced” in Luke in pursuit of your argument, again you have (in your argument) employed a reasoning or position of the passive I do not hold but happily you have picked a verse with which I might demonstrate something you missed and actually injures your exegesis.

You state that it does not mean “allow someone to muzzle you”,” rather it means “shut up”. The problem with your assertion is that when someone is given the passive imperative command such as “Be silenced”, it does not merely mean shut up because shut up does not reflect the appropriate appreciation for the passive nuance. The use of the passive does mean, in fact, to yield to a something, here and in fact it just happens that this something turns out to be a someone!

Now it is true the translation should not be “allow someone to muzzle you” but it may be translated, “Be muzzled by me”. Who is the “me”? Our Lord.

What is occurring here in the context is our Lord speaking and doing so with authority. He has the floor so to speak and they are interrupting. He commands them to yield to Him, hence the passive voice.

Again, let me be clear, it is not always a someone but it is always a something to which one must yield in the passive imperative. It just happens here that the verse you chose in hopes of proving a point ended up making a point that you are missing about the passive.

(BTW when our Lord commands the devils to depart the man He uses the active voice. That is, they are to depart of their own volition but in obedience to our Lord. It is an interesting side study).

3. And as to the development of the passive voice. Its history is interesting but it is irrelevant to its reality and distinction and clear employment in Koine Greek. The passive voice has a distinct use and is not diminished somehow by the historical process of its eventual proprietary value.

Finally let me tackle this last response:

[Charlie] So, “Be filled with the Spirit” may indicate a passivity on the part of the so commanded, but it may not. The voice alone does not encode that meaning. Linguistically it means, “Enter a state in which you are filled with the Spirit.” That could mean that the Spirit fills a person as he yields, or it could mean something else. What we cannot do, and what you have done, is read your theological interpretation of a command back into the grammatical category of voice. The meaning encoded by the passive voice has to be equally true of the first verb in the sentence as the second.

Again, in the latter part of this post you are rebutting a position it appears you assume I am making, which I am not. The passive voice, which carries with it the principle of having to yield to a something, is indeed true in both the first and second parts of the verse in Eph 5:18. We are not to yield to wine which will make us drunk and we are to yield to the Spirit which will fill us. The principle that the subject receives the action of the verb and the action of the verb is performed by another something is consistent in both parts.

So I will forgo dealing with the claim I have read anything into the interpretation since you made that based on the erroneous belief I was arguing something else. As to what Ephesians means, I can state dogmatically due to the Greek construct of every word. It is unfortunate that others believe it can mean one or more things and cannot teach its meaning it with authority. This is necessary for sound instruction. But of course the passage is not the issue at hand; it has simply been serving as a tool for reference to a larger point. However, that is the point of exegesis and the results it should render, clarity, not obfuscation.

[Bob T.] The discussion regarding the voice of the Greek verbs is interesting but perhaps not the heart of the argument regarding faith.

You are right, Bob, it is not the heart of the argument, just one of many observations that collectively form a natural exegetical rebuttal (so to speak) to some of the proprietary assertions of Calvinism. But no, it is not the heart of the argument.

OK Alex, probably nobody but the two of us are reading this exchange. I’ll end this with 3 points.

First, I contacted Carl Conrad today, and he confirmed my earlier analysis that the imperatives in view are not true passives but rather middles that instruct a person to undertake an action terminating upon himself - much like “Shut up!”

Second, the imperatives in Eph 5:18 must be middles since in NT Greek, the bare dative does not express agency, but rather means. Wine is dative. That means wine is not viewed as an agent acting upon the subject, but as the means by which the subject accomplishes the action for himself. Likewise, the Spirit is governed by the preposition “en”, which communicates instrumentality, not agency (see Wallace, GGBB, 372ff). So, since the grammatical forms rule out agency, they also rule out a passive understanding of the verbs. (BTW, the grammatical form is ambiguous, middle-passive.)

So, a conceptually accurate way to express this might be, “Don’t get yourself drunk using wine, but fill yourself using the Spirit.” I find confirmation of this in the next verse, which is not a separate sentence in Greek, but rather a participial clause. With this understanding, the participle can be taken as a “means” participle, telling us how we are to fill ourselves using the Spirit.

Third, I offer a simple challenge. Write a sentence, in either Greek or English, that you think accurately communicates the Calvinist notion of belief. The only rules are that the sinner must be the subject, and you must use the word “believe” in the passive voice. If you could do that, I’d be about 80% of the way to converting.

Charlie,

I, for one, am reading this exchange, and find it helpful. I hope I can remember this information the next time I deal with Eph. 5:18.

With appreciation,

Greg Barkman

rrobinson,

Sorry to be repetitious, and in the process, apparently tedious. I know from personal experience that sometimes the same concept, stated in slightly different terms can become more clear. I fear that in your case, it simply became irritating. My apologies.

However, I gather that you are asking me for my definition of grace. So, hoping to be helpful and not tedious, here’s my response.

In this thread, I have used “Grace” to indicate the ability given by God to enable sinners to understand the gospel and believe in Christ. “Prevenient” (preceding) indicates that grace is given in advance, that is, before the exercise of faith is posssible. This is the most narrow definition of grace. In a broader sense, grace can include everthing God does to secure salvation, including the atonement, but that is not the way I used the word in this thread.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Charlie] I offer a simple challenge. Write a sentence, in either Greek or English, that you think accurately communicates the Calvinist notion of belief. The only rules are that the sinner must be the subject, and you must use the word “believe” in the passive voice. If you could do that, I’d be about 80% of the way to converting.

Thanks for the interaction. I have read Conrad’s proposals and work. It is very thoughtful and his scholarship exemplary in many areas. And without longer focus on Ephesians I will simply disagree right now what you believe are implications of the middle (middle passive) since, even in Conrad’s approach where the middle passive emphasizes the subject not acting with self-interest so much (which he accepts as a general concept) but the subject experiencing the action of the verb and the nature of that experience, it leaves room for conceptual arguments of precise context. And as Conrad concedes, though he prefers to approach all such verbs as middle passive it is context that sometimes makes the final vote and I believe in Ephesians this is still debatable and in fact is being debated by exegetes now. And of course Ephesians 5:18 and its surrounding text already has a giant body of some very strong and lengthy exegesis so in order to avoid sinking here into this and getting permanently off course I will move back to the my observation.

As to the question, in the Greek it simply would be written as a passive imperative to believe. But it seems that you cannot simply be asking for a passive imperative command to believe since it is quite obvious as the answer. Maybe I am missing something but when one asks me to write in the Greek a passive imperative command to believe and they know Greek and all I have to do is write it down, it seems I have to be missing something in the question. Because if I write it in the passive, then the passive voice would contain or carry with it the Calvinist notion of belief based on your statement that within the atonement is even the exercise of our faith. Now you might disagree with my view that this implies a passive voice is required or should be used and I understand disagreeing with the implication I am suggesting but it certainly is true in other circumstances in the use of the passive where one receives the action of a verb.

Because in the active voice there is a complete absence of recognition of any other agent but the subject in Acts where that person is commanded “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”. And that certainly is not true of Calvinism’s view in the process of one’s coming to believe.

Alex, I’ve been trying to make this clear from the beginning. You can’t write the sentence in English or Greek. It comes out like this - “Sinner, be believed.” It’s just nonsensical. The Calvinist notion of faith requires two clauses, both with active verbs. “The Spirit regenerates the sinner so that he believes.” See, active verbs.

But I still think you’re conflating voice with broader considerations. Not everything that happens in a given situation is expressed in a single sentence. Consider this sentence. “The Egyptians built the pyramids.” Now, imagine someone arguing that this sentence, if true, disproves the use of slaves. After all, grammatically, the subject identifies who performs the action of the verb, and there is NO recognition that anyone else is involved.

Or, “The slaves built the pyramids.” Now, someone argues that they must have done it of their own volition without any coercion, because, after all, if they had been forced or prompted to do it, the author would have used the passive voice. (I think this is analogous to your argument.)

First, let me certainly disagree with your analogy because to state the Egyptians built the the pyramids is true. The slaves are their property and such a statement would be reflective of their views. Their sociology and philosophy is not contradicted. If the active voice is being used we are speaking of who controls the event of the verb and that would indeed be the Egyptians.

And this is why the active voice is used to command us to believe, because we, our volition, controls the event. The active voice reflects the one that performs the verb.

Now one might argue that it disproves the use of slaves and they would be wrong but I never made the argument of disproving Calvinism with this single observation, simply that the active voice is interesting with regard to believing when it is allegedly God’s work (our believing) and when we speak of other contexts where it is God’s work such has “you have been saved” or commands to ” be filled” or “be transformed”, we find passives again (or at least for argument’s sake middle passives but clearly not active voices) which reflects God doing the work. But I never said anything about disproving

Let me address your “be believed”. Unfortunately that would be how it would come out in the English. But remember, that isn’t because I think “be believed” is a great way to say something but if the passive were used we would, long ago, have accepted this as the way to say in English what the Greek is saying due to importing in the passive the idea that you have stated is the classic Calvinist view which is that the exercise of our faith was accomplished in the atonement (it wasn’t).

However, because no one has secured our belief before it occurred as it is being suggested, we see the active voice being used. There is no receiving the exercise of our faith that was accomplished in the atonement because that is not true, hence no need for the passive. But it certainly could be used. It doesn’t sound good in English but many Greek constructs do not. But if someone has already accomplished something for you, if your faith has already been exercised (and that is how you said it) then the action of the verb, believing on Christ, has already been performed and we can only receive or yield to this action. Unless you are saying that the action of the verb is performed twice, once at the atonement and once when we believe. That would be interesting.

As to regeneration before faith someone nullifying the argument. Though it is, in my view, an errant one, it is irrelevant. Again, if as you said, even the exercise of our faith (which would be the verb being performed) was accomplished in the atonement then it is not going to be exercised again (active voice), it is going to be received, even if one holds to regeneration before faith, and that would be a passive or at least (for argument’s sake) a middle passive and not an active voice which is exactly what is used.

I have stated twice, now a third time, it is not a mountain, merely one observation. I doubt from here we will go much further. Thanks.

[Charlie] 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.

I thought that it would be good to quote part of the post to which is being referred. By way of explanation, one can see that redemption is accomplished by Jesus. These are clearly active. Jesus was certainly active in what he did on the cross (as well as the passive obedience). The point being is that redemption was accomplished by the Trinity. One of those things that was purchased, was faith. It is applied by the Holy Spirit, so that the person actively believes. I certainly hope that I’m expressing things they way that Charlie would. I mention these things because I think that there may be an explanation stating one thing and a reading that is going another. Now, I’ll quote part of Alex’s post to me.

[Alex] As Charlie stated in effect we believe because it was accomplished in the atonement (of course I disagree). It is primary as the cause for our believing (among other things that Calvinism asserts as to the primary cause of our believing but I am only treating Charlies’ statement which represents classical Calvinism as he states).

Perhaps, “purchased” in the atonement would be a little bit better wording if we are talking about the faith of the elect. Are you reading Charlie as saying that our believing was accomplished (the act of believing was actually done by God) in the atonement? Are you reading Charlie as saying that God believes for us? Because I would read him as saying that the faith was purchased in the atonement, applied by the Holy Spirit, and then we actively believe, which would make your point with the verse in Acts quite moot.

I have to mention this because I think that I MAY be seeing where some misunderstanding is resting.

Caleb,

Again here is the quote:

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.

When he states that “All that the sinner exercises (this is verb action), including faith…is the Spirit’s application of Christ’s Work” it is rather clear to me that it is not just accomplished but exercised (his word, not mine). It is unambiguous.

And then to say it is the Spirit’s application, even our faith, the implication is, to me, staggering.

When we believe the Spirit’s application of the atonement and the reference to our being saved is found in the passive voice, exactly because of that. That Christ does the work and we receive its benefits.

If this includes the exercise of our faith within the atonement then we should be receiving the action of the verb already performed and being applied. In fact, now that I revisit this, it calls for, with the word application, even more so for a passive context.

Yes, as a Calvinist, I believe that all of the Christian’s benefits are purchased by Christ at the atonement and applied in time by the Spirit. In the case of faith, the Spirit effects faith in the believer by regenerating him, or, in the words of the WCF, “enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.”

So there is a causal connection. However, causality doesn’t necessitate a passive voice. Take this sentence: “He mashed the gas pedal, and the engine roared.” Active verbs. Even though there is a clear causal connection, a passive doesn’t even make sense: “The engine was roared.”

Take another example: “The magician made the rabbit disappear.” “Disappear” is active. Saying “to be disappeared” is extremely awkward, if not outright wrong.

BTW, Greek uses actives the same way. From Mark 7:37 - ” τοὺς κωφοὺς ποιεῖ ἀκούειν καὶ [τοὺς] ἀλάλους λαλεῖν.” [He makes the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak.]

To put it another way, an active voice does not signify intention, volition, or the lack of caused or instrumental action. “The key turned in the lock.” Yes it did, but who made the key turn?

So, I think you have just made an incorrect connection between a logical concept and a grammatical form.

We say, the engine was revved, but the engine was roared is acceptable. The normal word you are use to is “revved” so the passive voice can and is used quite regularly in the context to which you are objecting. So the engine being revved can be expressed either actively or passively depending on the emphasis of the verb.

As to the rabbit, if we remove the subject of the magician and make the rabbit the subject so that it may receive the action of the verb in a passive context we may say, “The rabbit was removed”. That is a passive form (btw your sentence is constructed with the subject being the magician and the rabbit being the direct object, hence the change).

Yes the word disappeared isn’t there but that word itself is seldom used passively so indeed it sounds awkward, as you noted, but replacing it with a synonym of sorts helps you understand that the passive, itself, can and is used. You simply are not used to the word disappear being used that way. It does not make the passive wrong, it just makes the way disappeared awkward since it is not commonly employed this way. That is an English language limitation either due to lack of use or simply its properties but it is not a factual or conceptual one.

Your reference to Mark has Jesus as the subject who is performing the action to the deaf and dumb who are the direct objects. Jesus is in view performing the action of the verb and is introduced as the subject. There is no dispute that the active voice is to be used. Now if the deaf and dumb were the subjects then I would expect a non-active voice to be used in reference to their being made to hear (I say non-active simply to drop the passive, middle-passive issue for the moment since either would suffice because we are talking about active voice).

As to volition, a key is not a volitional being. You have distinct objects. Nouns have properties and when those nouns perform actions we include in view those relevant properties with respect to the verb. So to say “The key turned the lock”, it is with the awareness that a key all by itself cannot turn a lock so volition is out of the picture as it relates to the key. However, when we construct sentences with volitional beings or those that can perform the action of the verb itself, that is in view.

But that smaller issue aside and to the casual connection and causality. When we speak of causality and connections, while casual may not (and likely does not but I don’t say this is an absolute) call for a passive voice, the view of the Calvinist as it pertains to our believing and as stated by you is not casual, it is quite formal and direct.

Now again, you don’t agree with the connection fine. We disagree. However it does seem quite convenient that you now qualify that causality of our believing on Christ as a casual relationship and not direct in order to make a case. If you are going to insist on our believing having been exercised in the atonement, I certainly object that the relationship between that and our believing is casual. These appear to be conceptual contradictions.

Again, I do not see any coming to terms here and I suspect there are just a few pitches and hits left on this microcosmic discussion. Thanks again.